User talk:Danlaycock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Danlaycock's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Danlaycock.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Unified login: Danlaycock is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.
Committed identity: 390d0e40969a8b041b178b5ada625d157b62befec186507791b21b1e23357b7f2a25328becf9e6f480adc0fe158b5efbe063ce697c938e7c677da38babe87f00 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.


This is the edit that requires a source. The EU was created in 1992 and therefore cannot have entered this treaty. The EEC did this and that existed alongside the EU for many years while the latter replaced all of the institutions of the former. Turkey's candidacy for EU membership is based on a more recent application. The term "expired" refers to the EEC. Now if you know for a fact that a treaty of some kind continues to exist for the EU based on what Turkey did with the EEC years earlier then it may be helpful if you add this information to the article. I don't claim to be an expert but I couldn't find anything on the page that dealt with the European Union and the modern day. As such it looks to me like a dated contract. The category you inserted may yet have to go. Even so, the category appears on more than 100 articles and there is no way it belongs on every single one of them. Any treaty that the EU has entered, the EU is party to. Anything it has inherited from the EEC (or EC) needs to be sourced and declared on every article where it is the case. --OJ (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the EU didn't enter into the treaty, but it succeeded the EEC. I've added some sources to the article which shows that the EU considers the AA to be between it and Turkey now. TDL (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's fine. So long as the two constituents (EU & Turkey) recognise the validity of the Ankara Agreement then there is no problem with the category, even if it lies dormant indefinitely. Cheers. --OJ (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


The article you quoted for undoing the edit clearly states with common sense and some exceptions. Does it make sense to have an article about Greek embassies to indicate a name that is in dispute? This is where common sense must pervail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)