Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

THIS IS COMPLETELTY TRUE, TURKEY AS IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY WILL NEVER JOIN THE EU, THIS ARTICLE IS JUST MERE POLITICALLY PROPAGANDA, I PORPOSE TO CHANGA A LOT OF THINGS AND EVENTUALLY TO DELETE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.32.125 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tell that story to my 92-year-old grandmother. Maybe she will believe. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Improving the "Conclusion".

Someone saw fit to add a section containing a "conclusion" to the article, which goes as follows: "Turkey will never be a European member because it's a islamic and asian country." Seems a tad inappropriate, no? Feel free to improve it , I just added mentioned the Armenian and Greek genocide. 58.161.130.222 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Bobbity

File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:TCDD HT65000 exterior-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TCDD HT65000 exterior-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Istanbulpanoramicview.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Istanbulpanoramicview.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Istanbulpanoramicview.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul on 3 June 2007.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul on 3 June 2007.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul on 3 June 2007.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Improving Background

I think background is really inefficient, as Turkey's adventures of "being a European country" begins from Ottoman period. More research and information needs for that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.134.101 (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

100% agreed. The dutch page is much more insightful in the history of Turkish-European relations and Ottoman aspirations to become a European state.NeoRetro (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Discussion

As WP is not a forum, I am not entering into many undue discussions above. Let me better introduce a discussion of edit request: In Section 1.3 (2000s) of the article there is an unnecessary reference to the supposed views of two political parties considering Turkey's EU membership. These views are neither notable nor valid, as arguments, because those parties are not "parties" to the accession process. The negotiations are being carried out with the EU Commission and at the end of the negotiations it will be the "governments" of the states parties that make up the European Council that will take the final decision. We should eliminate the political party views... --E4024 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Both of the parties govern their respective countries so I don't see how this distinction is relevant. Even if they didn't, the offer of a privileged partnership instead of full membership would still be notable. TDL (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. One of those parties was in government when the European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Turkey. (i.e. If they were really against, they could veto. They did not. Because it was a "fork" for opening negotiations also with another Balkan country.) The other was in election process and used the issue for internal political reasons. When it came to government did not do anything to stop or change the course of negotiations. This is why I ask the removal... --E4024 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But just because they backed down doesn't mean it wasn't notable. I've rephrased the sentence to reflect the fact that negotiations were opened with the objective of membership. Perhaps this helps? TDL (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Better than before; thanks. --E4024 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Turkey and Greece joined the CoE in 1949, only three months after the treaty that established the Council, and participated at the establishment process of this regional political organisation; thus are regarded as founders of the CoE, although there is no difference between the status of any "member" countries within the CoE. It is not a question of status, but maybe prestige... --E4024 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

|

Turkey would be the first Muslim-majority country to join the European Union. Isn't it possible that Albania or Bosnia will become EU members earlier than Turkey? --134.176.204.39 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Of course it is possible. Are those countries realising accession talks with the EU? (In that case we should avoid calling Turkey "the first would-be Muslim majority member"...) --E4024 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of "moderately advanced"

Hi guys, I've changed some of the current situation table data. However, many of the "Further efforts needed" section is actually "Turkey's overall level is moderately advanced", implying that the situation is better than "further efforts needed" but possibly inadequate for "generally aligned with the acquis" (such as company law, public procurement, taxation, energy,competition policy,informational society, transport policy, and social policy) Whats your opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fah112778 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's "Further efforts needed" CultureArchitect (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

France unfreezing Chapter 22

Hey ladies and gentlemen, ABHaber says that "Fransa, AB müzakerelerinde tıkadığı beş başlıktan biri olan 22’nci fasıl önündeki engeli kaldırdı."

This means "France has removed blockage of one (22nd chapter) of its 5 chapters it has blocked."

http://www.abhaber.com/manset-haber/manset-haber/fransa-turkiye-ile-22-fasli-acmak-istiyoruz-048017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fah112778 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Apologies if this has been discussed before. The article states "Turkey would be the first Muslim-majority country to join the European Union". Surely Albania (and possibly even Kosovo) are more likely to join first? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, if we will touch on the religion issue than the mentioning of Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo are all relevant, as former balkans more 'directly' in europe their positions are not as contested as turkey's either 70.69.172.92 (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Hollande cautiously backs Turkey's EU bid (Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).

not once has it been mentioned the issue of Turkish atrocities against the Armenian race and the Armenian Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.93.184 (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly there is, its a section called "Armenian issue" which discusses the stance of nations like France when it comes to support for the accession, and linked to the Armenian genocide page, its definitely covered in the article, However it should be mentioned in what may cause specific countries to not back Turkey but the European Union itself has not declared the recognition as a pre-cursor. PLEASE note I am not downplaying it, I am stating that current human rights abuses would take priority over ones in the past which cannot be changed or halted as ones currently can at least according to various human rights groups like the Kurdish minority in the east which may worry the EU more at the moment70.69.172.92 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A few things to note: it is usually not good to assume the cultural or ethnic identity of someone committing censorship or vandalism, I have run into such things in the past where we assume they cannot be neutral, in the same way we have to look at this issue, are there some turks and some europeans who would like to censor or vandalize this page? probably yes, however to say that Turkey has far too many non democratic forces because of vandalism on this page is again a statement that does not make sense, anyone of any country can harm their reputation by messing things up, as it were the individual in question did not follow procedure and that is the important portion of info, whether or not he or she was turkish chinese or american does not matter, vandalism is vandalism and is corrected in the same way, it seems bias in itself to blame Turks because someone vandalised this page. I ran into a problem back on the U.S. page where someone said it was probably Europeans that hated America, that just like this is a statement which ruins Wikipedia's reputation overall — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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] (forced to remove link to idebate when saving page)HendrikDeLeeuw (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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?

References

^ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60278/wolfgang-schauble-and-david-l-phillips/talking-turkey?page=2

Timeline

Is it relevant to add future dates to the timeline of this process and the most likely date of accession, or otherwise? For instance Jean-Claude Juncker has just said (July 2014) that there will be no more enlargement for five years [1] and Turkish prime minister Erdogan says that if Turkey isn't admitted by 2023 that it will withdraw its application [2]. The first statement will encourage further stalling and the second will make some sort of unilateral action by Turkey (withdrawal of application, agreement with Cyprus, etc.) inevitable. Thus, given what's said in the Future section any enlargement including Turkey would have to happen in a 2019-2023 window. HendrikDeLeeuw (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is that there are so many official and semi-official pronouncements, especially from the Turkish side, like Turkey should join by such-and such date, can go it alone, must join, will not join, will withdraw, will join Shanghai Five instead, etc. etc. that maybe an official sentiment timeline could be maintained here. HendrikDeLeeuw (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

GDP statistic is misleading

The GDP statistic in the lead table aims to show that Turkey is 3x richer than the average EU country. But it's not per capita. If it were presented per capita, Turkey would be the poorest (okay, maybe third poorest) country in the EU. This is totally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.55.186 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A nations wealth is measured in total levels. Per capita is a quality of life metric, that's the wealth of the average citizen, not the wealth of the nation. Due to Turkey's very high growth, in a few years it will probably be ahead of nations like Portugal and Greece in PPP per capita terms anyway; if it joined the EU, the rate of it's equalization would likely be even faster. Also, I also have no idea how this is misleading. It would be misleading if they were claiming to compare Turkey's PPP per capita to the average European nations, and instead used PPP figures, but that's not what they did. There was never any claim to be comparing Turkey's quality of life to other European nations, just Turkey's wealth and how much it had to bring to the table.68.19.233.52 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

GDP is not a measure of wealth by any stretch of the imagination; it's a measure of income. And the way is it used here is meaningless. It compares Turkey's GDP to the average for the EU and it uses Purchasing Power Parity to further inflate an already meaningless comparison. This article is meant to present facts but this is just some naive or misguided attempt to make it appear that Turkey is somehow economically ahead of a "typical" EU country. Furthermore what is the point of highlighting population and area? Neither has any relevance and again it's used to inflate a meaningless comparison. Population has everything to do with social policies and culture and area is, well, typically the result of conflict. I think this article has lapsed into bad and offensive propaganda and needs to be rewritten from scratch. I'm happy to do that. HendrikDeLeeuw (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

European migrant crisis

I think that the European migrant crisis that has resulted from the Syrian Civil War is a membership issue for Turkey. JC · Talk · Contributions 23:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150628201405/http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=166463 to http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=166463

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090822162628/http://www.cphpost.dk:80/get/103964.html to http://www.cphpost.dk/get/103964.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=235
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/Member_states/e_tu.asp#TopOfPage
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nato.int/turkey/turkey2.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=166463
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822162628/http://www.cphpost.dk:80/get/103964.html to http://www.cphpost.dk/get/103964.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Statistics Section does not add up

The statistics section suggests Turkey's population, GDP, territory are bigger than of those of the EU's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigoonlet (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 October 2016 (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)

The article is sugar talking

The article is sugar talking Turkey and is trying to give excuses for Turkey's actions in everything, blaming its victims. It fails completely to give the explanations behind the reasons of why turkey is rejected for decades. What is the point of writhing an article if it is to sugar talk it and make it a propaganda in favor of turkey and against its victims.? Is not a lobbying action, is an article. How can this be realistic, by sugar talking in a propaganda level in favor of turkey and against its victims? Anyhow....

9 reasons among hundreds why Turkey is rejected for decades....

1) 2 invasions in 1974 against Cyprus, full with war crimes, and the total ethnic cleansing, of all the indigenous for thousands and for thousands years people of North Cyprus.

2) Not letting any of the indigenous people of Cyprus to return to their homes even now in 2014 after 40 years.

3) Turkey is illegally occupying the 36.5% of Cyprus, ethnic cleansed and is having illegally 43 thousands troops there.

3) Genocides against Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and the rest of Christians all non-recognized and stolen their houses, goods and properties. Fail to return to the relatives of the victims, their properties and compensations and fail to recognize the genocides.

4) Looting all properties in North Cyprus, murders, rapes, and 10 times more civilian victims rather than soldiers, in the 2 invasions of Cyprus in 1974.

5) Vast discrimination and abuse of human rights, against the Christian minorities in Turkey, which led to their extinction from more than 25% in 1910-1912, to none today. Fail to compensate, fail to return the stolen properties, fail to return anything. Genocides, rapes, multiple times the taxes, stolen properties, churches becoming mosques and stables, pogroms, vast abuses of human rights, discrimination,e.t.c were ways used to achieve that.

6) The burning of thousands of Kurdish villages and the vast abuse of human rights against the kurds, including tens of thousands of murders.

7) No freedom of the press. Imprisonment of journalists just for saying truths.

8) Casus belli against Greece, if Greece implements its internationally recognized right, implemented by the vast majority of the countries of this planet, to expand it territorial waters to 12 sea miles.

9) In 2008, Turkey ranked second after Russia in the list of countries with the largest number of human rights violation cases open at the European Court of Human Rights, with 9,000 cases pending as of August 2008. In 2011, the ECtHR issued 159 judgments that found violations by Turkey, the most of any country, with Russia coming second at 121 judgments

To I need to continue?....You can continue to sugar talking turkey and propagandizing against its victims, failing to tell the realistic truth, but Europeans know better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The article seems like an attempt by Turkey to talk its way into the EU; it should be informative and it's a disservice to English-speaking Wikipedia users that it has turned into this. Again I offer to restructure the article because it is an important topic that keeps popping up in the European current affairs. All the promotional material needs to go and political issues should be neutral point-of-view.HendrikDeLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I do in principle agree with your assessment. One particularily absurd example is that the "Benefits for Turkey" sub-section openly and uncritically endorses the idea that EU membership would make it easier for Turkey to ethnically cleanse regions of ethnic Kurdish people. While I do not think that the entire article must be rewritten, completely overhauling it with the agenda of intellectual sincerity instead of sugar talking should definitely be done. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Turkey and Greece joined the CoE in 1949, only three months after the treaty that established the Council, and participated at the establishment process of this regional political organisation; thus are regarded as founders of the CoE, although there is no difference between the status of any "member" countries within the CoE. It is not a question of status, but maybe prestige... --E4024 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2012 (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)

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)

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)

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)

Moved "immigration section"

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

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)

map

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

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

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] (forced to remove link to idebate when saving page)HendrikDeLeeuw (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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?

References

^ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60278/wolfgang-schauble-and-david-l-phillips/talking-turkey?page=2

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)