Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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.

I strongly agree too , for an Armenian everything includes Turkish is the place to make cheap propaganda of so-called genocide,

have a good day and good propagandas. Cemalmelih

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.179.23 (talk • contribs) 21:20, January 1, 2006 (UTC)

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)

The way you formulate it is in itself already more then telling: 'I believe ..;'. Well, as far as I'm understanding the Wikipedia project, the descriptions should be a matter of neutral observation, verifiable facts, rational consideration of ALL relevant facts, scientific method etc, and NOt a matter of personal opinion or belief. So, when voicing your doubts on state funding of islam in EU member states, why don't you just verify this. being an expat living in brussels, I can tell you that in most states, the official records show that islam is indeed funded!

In addition, I have the impression that Rudi Dierick is providing detailled information of relevant arguments. The point he tries to mae is that the legal rules estatblished in the EU are indeed secular and NOT religious. I agree with that. if a majority of the people is then catholic, anglican, ... or whatsover is irrelevant. It is just the fact that non-secular people appear unable (or unwilling?) to understand and ercognise those secular choices that worries so many, and that underlines that the pro-Turkish side has difficulties acknowledging the very different meaning of 'secular' in the Eu and in Turkey. Kind regards,

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.243.37.204 (talk • contribs) 18:57, November 14, 2005 (UTC)

Probably those advancing this element focus on the PRACTICE, and not on the THEORY!

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

Many Greek Cypriots feel that it is ironic to reconcile with those (the Turks) that have invaded their own country not very long ago. Indeed, what Turks would do if the Iraqis would invade a part of south eastern Turkey? Would they accdept a similar Anan plan 30 years after the invasion? Interestingly, the invasion has cost so much to the Turks so that most experienced Turkish diplomats regard this incident as one of the most damaging in the recent history of the nation.

So you, personally, have arbitrarily decided that a plan that the UN, EU, US, Russia and various Asian organisations endorsed as a fair and responsible settlement was 'unbalanced' and have thusly decided to removed references to the Greek Cypriot rejection which is the sole reason Cyprus continues to be a factor. Such is the hopelessness of any meaningful dialogue on this I am not going to make any changes or even suggest any changes - I am simply going to point and laugh and forget this page exists, for it may as well not. In its present form, that is all it deserves; all that you, personally deserve.

Also - if you can find me a single history book that does not base the Cyprus problem on the Greek nationalist drive for 'Enosis', I will personally apologise to you. I do not anticipate having to make any such apology - as the US Ambassador, George Ball, wrote to his President - "The Greek Cypriotes do not want a peace-keeping force; they just want to be left alone to kill Turkish Cypriotes." Perhaps you prefer the UN Chief of Staff, Francis Henn, view? "56,000 members of the [Turkish Cypriot] community had been deprived [by the Greek Cypriots authorities] of their normal means of subsistence." I could go on, but I refer you instead to www.cyprus-conflict.net which features a series of essays and memoirs by the involved parties. You may learn something.

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)

polygamous mariages are not sanctioned at large scale. there are occurances in highly religious parts of society or under-educated rural areas. this is something the NGOs and government agencies work on. your sentences are full of prejudice. what kind of country you think is Turkey? stop making ignorant generalizations. --Gokhan 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear, thanks for acknowledging that polygamous marriages are indeed still occuring in Turkey. So mr. Dierick statement was not ignorant at all, but 'maybe' a generalisation. Could you please, after you've accused mr. dierick of making generalizations, also substatiate your claim? Many thanks in advance.

The only two western countries that I know of that formally separates state and religion are France and the US. Is anybody going to deny that polygamous marriages occur in both of these countries? Mr Dierick's point is inane - it may was well be that theft is OK in Turkey because sometimes it happens. Polygamous marriage is most definitely outlawed and has been for a long, long time - some people break that law (like the North African community does in France, like the Mormons do in the US).

It is unfortunate Mr Dierick is using this article and its discussion page as a debate forum to argue against the entry of Turkey. I will humour him and tell him he need not worry, Turkey is not taking entry very seriously anymore - just negotiating for the sake of negotiating. It brings in foreign investment. Turkey will never join the EU so you can put your fears aside. Nobody has ever succeeded in isolation and if you think member states will not open up their markets to a population the size of Turkeys because the EU tells them not to, you are being naive. That being the case, there is no need to join. Nor should you sulk if you wake up to the prospect of a Turkey in Asian alliances that may run counter to EU aspirations. This 'in Europe because we want a buffer but not in European clubs because you are not European' deal is unacceptable. We do not want our young workforce going off anymore than you want them arriving, we have a large growth rate to feed. Carry on funding your pension schemes with migrant workers from countries that suffer from extremism - apparently you still have not learnt the difference between Muslim and Muslim. It might cost you a few more trains, but you will learn this difference in time. I apologise for this off the topic rant, but I did not feel it out of place in a pretty much off the topic discussion page.

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

Now if things were so good for non-muslims, why then has the non-muslim share of the Turkish polpulations decreased so drastically over the last few decennia? That can, to my humble opinion, only be explained by factors that make life significantly less satisfactory for non-muslims then for muslims. --Lucas Richards 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

What cooperation you talk about? Don't expect any cooperation ever on that. Threatening Turkey with EU, vetoes, etc by Greek Cypriots, Greece, U.S., Russia or EU won't simply work. These threats won't make Turkey leave its Turkish brothers in the hands of Greek Cypriots.

Turkey's military intervention in 1974 is not an attempt to gain more territory or invasion. If Turkey didn't act in 1974, the island would be united with Greece as result of a coup and there wouldn't left a single Turkish Cypriot alive in the hands of Greeks.

EU accepted Greek Cypriots as member, despite their massacres and disrespect for the Turkish Cypriot minority, and their unwillingness to solve the Cyprus problem in a humanitarian and civilized manner. It can be deducted from the EU policies that, by accepting the Greek Cypriots before any real solution, EU clearly approves and endorses Greek Cypriots' actions.

EU also continues to support the economic and political isolation of Turkish Cypriots, despite their past horrific experiences and their recent political will shown in 2004 referendum to reunite the island.

Greek Cypriot government does not represent Turkish Cypriots. The proclamation of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (by Turkish Cypriots) is the use of the self-determination right in accordance with the Helsinki Final Act and other international state laws. --Gokhan 11:20, 25 April 2006 (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)

On the issue of Armenia, free speech and France it should not be forgotten that a French court convicted Bernard Lewis for the views he express in Le Monde about the massacres. Not because they argued he was wrong, the court ruling accepted his standing as an authority on Middle Eastern history - but because his teachings could be offensive to Armenians. France is now pushing a law to make 'denial' illegal. The irony is that the the French state historian for ME affairs, Gilles Veinstein, would have to stop teaching because he also rejects the genocide thesis. France employed him as a consultant then ignored him and passed a bill recognising the genocide. France does this while taking exactly the same line as Turkey over Rwanda and Algeria - that history should be left to historians. Much has been written about the hypocricy shown by the EU in dealing with Turkey - perhaps this ought to be better reflected in the article.

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). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.46.140 (talk • contribs) 04:28, September 25, 2005 (UTC)

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). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.76.39.4 (talk • contribs) 18:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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.

Apparently, you have a major problem with the fact that there are also a certain amount of arguments against being mentionned. I personally see a couple of economic arguments where ascession benefits both current EU members and Turkey, and democratic arguments (ascession would greatly imrpove democracy in Turkey), but I also see certain arguments against. Therefore, I feel we should concentrate on the relevance and validity of every single argument, instead of making vague statements of dissatisfaction! --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

yes and no! Let's first underline I appreciate your efforts to clarify your point of view.

Let's not forget that Turkey's demand to join the EU means that by the very nature of that demand, it is Turkey who wants to join an existing political union. As such, it is Turkey who, unilaterally, as to align itself on the existing rules of the EU. All other new joiners have accepted this. negotiations then deal about periods for adaptations and modifications of the laws and institutions in the countries that want to join. Therefore, it looks normal to me that the European perspective dominates. That perspective is the joint results of the 25 current states who negotiated among them in order to make the EU what it is now, and over the coming years, the EU will further continue to evolve! --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, you are perfectly right that any contributor should try to understand what you mean. So, to sumamrise, YES, mutual understanding is needed, but NO, the EU does have the right to sayt 'these are the rule of our club, and if you want to join our club, then you will have to accept ALL our rules (the so-called 'acquis communautaire' an ALL its current members!). Hopes that you show as much efforts to understand what I mean, as what you ask us to do towards you! --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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".

Whoouw, such a generalisation. have you never heard from European critics on what's going wrong in certain EU member states? Just check the chapters in rfeports from HRW and Amnesty International, written by Europeans, criticising European states. Your statement therefore, looks more like hurt pride, then a factually correct statement. --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

- 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.).

That appears factually wrong: as far as I know, NO other state has recognised Turkey's unilateral declaration of self-indepdendance for it's Northern Cyprus puppet, NOR Turkey's mass transfer of Anatolian Turks needed in order to increase the Turkish percentage of the Cypriotic island. Moreover, Don't you know that Nagorno-Karabach was an internationally recognised part of Armenia (thus making it wholly incomparable with an totally unrecgnised statelet). --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

- 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)

I fully agree: Europe needs to get over itself. this article should avoid reproducing common western stereotypes of so-called (in the eurocentric world view) eastern countries (that’s right, east of what?). it seems some want to take it the other way. Turkey is, and has been, a fiercely secular state since its inception.

It was already explained above that the Turkish definition of 'secular' is quite different from the EU definition! In the EU defnition, it is not acceptable that a state widely subsidises one religious tendency (here: Sunni Muslims) whereas all other tendencies and religions are discriminated, getting nothing but sabotage and discrimination. That's only one example. So please think again about the meaning of the word 'secular'. And if you cannot accept the EU defnition, then that might be another indication that some Turkish contributors and their fellows are unwilling to accept the EU-rules of the game! So why join a union if you have such a massive dislike of its rules? --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is even a ban on Islamic political parties, in contrast to Europe, where "Christian peoples parties" abound.

Sorry, again to have to disappoint you. Those christian parties inthe current EU are not defending privileges for their believers over the others, jnor are they insisting that their religious law should go above the secular laws of the EU countgries! So, the issue at stake is NOT that one religious group (the Turkish Sunni Muslims) is not allowed to do something that other religious groups are allowed to do, but that far to many of the leaders of those Sunni Muslims insist on obtaining MORE rights then what christians and atheists and anybody else in the EU enjoys.--Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, while Turkey may sponsor a state religion, so do many European countries. for example, Denmark finances a state church out of taxes and employs thousands of priests.

This appears factually wrong: in Denmark, there are also other religious groups that receive subsidies under exactly the same rules as the dominant protestants. Even better: as far as I know, ALL groups that asked for recognition (and subsidies) did obtain it! --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Danish state church is charged with many clerical duties, for example, a Muslim is required to officially register their children with the state-- at the church.

Strange, my Danish colleagues were utterly surprised at that. According to them, that is completely wrong! --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

as for the assumption that all Muslims are all devout and traditional to a degree unparalled in Christendom, where does this come from?? and the assumed oppression of Turkish women, yet another reproduction of an age old european-christian stereotype that dates back from the middle ages. in fact women in turkey gained the right to vote before women in France. furthermore women in turkey today enjoy very similar protection under the laws as women in European countries. it is in enforcement and cultural reproduction of societal norms where the inequalities emerge, and this is not just a problem for turkey (for example, see this recent amnesty international report about violence against women in France: [1]). of course turkey is culturally different from what is commonly considered "european"-- but these differences don't indicate cultural inferiority.

Well, if those differences would imply cultural inferiority or superiority is of NO relevance at all here. What is important is whether the cultures are compatible with the secular laws of the EU! --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

that is unless you subscribe fully to the eurocentric world view that bore out of the european practice of colonialism and imperialism, 

Sorry, but this appears to me a purely pesonal appreciation, and not an objective, verifiable account of things, nor a rational explanation.

which mobilized and relied upon notions of racial and cultural superiority in order to justify overseas domination and brutal exploitation of the "primitives" abroad for economic gain. these notions of european superiority are persistently reproduced to this day, a fact that is evident in the similarity between the supposed "civilizing" mission of colonialism and the more recent notion that through a strong association with europe, turkey will become strongly anchored in human rights and democracy. in reality the high level european officials who are pushing this idea on the european public just want to hurry up and get on with fully exploiting Turkish markets. bottom line: enlargement is good for the internal market.

if the EU really wants to encorporate turkey into the european union, they should do so, but not through a suspect program of steady "europeanization." if turkey it is going to be accepted, it should be accepted as turkey. sadly things are moving in the exact opposite direction, making the EU's slogan, "united in diversity" laughable at best. -ned 64.209.125.6 17:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice try! It is just the other way round: it is Turkey which is asking to be allowed to join the EU, and not the Europeans asking Turkey to join! So I think you really shpould have a good tought about what it means when youb state that Turkey shoulkd be accepted as it is, meaning without any "europeanization."! --Lucas Richards 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

article is quite good IMHO

i just read the whole article and didnt find so controversial stuff in it, i must admit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.86.113 (talk • contribs) 19:17, October 19, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Quite agree with Nema Fakei. Not only church attendance is low, also christian influence over politics. All over Europe, many 'christian' organisations are rdemoving the 'christian label' from their names, and its influence from their program in order to broaden it. In addition, and even more important to me, is that all those christians gladly accept that secular laws have full priority over any religious rule. In Turkey, the 'Kemalists' also try that, with quite some fervor, but there appears to be a creeping islamization which is gaining influence. that means rapidly growing street presence of ostensibly islamic Turks, that sunni imams receive large state funding (whereas Alevi and Christians get nothing, even cannot educate their religious folks), that polygamous mariages continue in certain areas. Similarly, during the last 20 years Turkey signed several ministerial declarations where Quran is declared a higher standard then the UDHR from the UN. --Lucas Richards 23:51, 8 June 2006 (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)

Secular means the seperation of state and church (religion), not that people are agnostic or atheistic. Sijo Ripa 11:26, 25 April 2006 (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)

This is not an article on Turkey's history Astavrou. This is to do with the Turkey's accession to the EU, and therefore we must concentrate on issues which directly affect this. Unfortunately many people have take the opportunity to introduce POV about Turkey's history which are of no consequence to its EU negotiations. Your accusation that Turkey "exterminated" 3.5m people in the 20's from their ancestral homes are exactly the kind of nationalist POV comments this page is attracting, and consequently discrediting this article as a serious analysis of Turkey's EU negotiations. --A.Garnet 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Altough not a specialist, it appears to me that that Cairo Declaration (and some subsequent ministerial and official governement declarations of the same line that Turkey also signed, later in the nineties) reflects a MAJOR contradiction in the official position of Turkey on universal human rights (which is part of the 'acquis communautaire'). On the one hand, Turkey signed the UN charter which implies that it agreed to be bound by the UN declaration on human right. That implies that those universal rights should be the highest rule, also for Turkey. On the other hand, it later signed several official declarations that explicitely state that Turkey agrees that there are OTHER, contradicting 'highest principles', being the Quran and the de facto dominant islamic interpretations. So, altough I would not be so sharp in my assessment as Mr. Dierick, I feel he has a point. Turkey needs to take sides: at least clarify on that very fundamental contradiction. As far as I can see, it will either have to officially renounce the Cairo declaratiuon, iether accept that it is outside UN position on universal human rights. Regards, Lucas Richards.

More Emphasis on Religion Needed

It is becoming more evident from many articles and interviews and such currently "cultural" i.e. religious differences is the main reason for rejecting Turkish membership. Many sources including EU officials such as Olli Rehn has suggested this is the main reason for popular vote results. So I have added more emphasis on this. I think there is more to write on this such as France's anti-Muslim sentiment mostly due to its Moroccan immigrants, Germany's integration issues with its Turkish immigrants, and Austria's historical anti-Turkish/anti-Muslim sentiment. More details can be added but it is a start... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.252.10 (talk • contribs) 17:12, January 29, 2006 (UTC)

You mean like the same sentiments against admitting Albania and Bosnia? - FrancisTyers 14:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also think we should add more info about historical enmity towards Turks + the lobbying done by various diasporas. It's certainly very much effecting the EU process. Can we include them in "Inherent Reasons" part or do we need to add a new sub-section for that? --Gokhan 11:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't get it, there are no sentiments against admitting Albania or Bosnia. At least no more than admitting Moldova or Macedonia. Regarding diaspora groups, shoot, sounds good, presumably you are talking largely about Armenians? - FrancisTyers 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - sorry my mistake, I was actually replying to the first comment. I really don't have any information about the EU prospects of those countries. About the other point, yes some diasporas really have negative lobbying activities, which is fine as that's their opinion. It's not nice to categorize but some examples came in my mind, such as Armenian Diaspora (France, U.S.), Greek Diaspora (U.K., U.S.) + some countries with historical issues (Austria, Hungary) + some countries with cultural superiority feelings (France, Sweden, Denmark, etc) + some countries with bad feelings towards their own Turkish immigrant population (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium). These reasons exist but off course there's a lot of politics and diplomacy. No German chancellor comes up saying "Our population hate Turks" or no French minister says "They killed our Armenian friends". Even Austrian foreign minister lady changed her rhetoric in front of journalists. They end up saying "Why not Ukraine?" as a counter argument... Anyway, in addition to concerete reasons, these can be added somewhat, but I couldn't place exactly where? Do you have a suggestion? --Gokhan 12:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is more emphasis on freligion needed? In principle, it should not be, as this topic is about something political / institutiona (one state possibly joining a union of states). However, as soon as religious arguments become important in the discussion about the desirability of such an ascession -either because proponents claim their ascession can not be refused as that would constitute a denial of it's dominantly islamic nature, either because antagonists and observers note that religious rules tend, from whatever side, to creep into the political discussion- then the religious aspects must not be censored away. --Lucas Richards 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

User:Slaciner just added the following external links to the article. They don't seem to have a lot of substance, they're all to the user's own site, and the site has ads. I'm reverting them as linkspam for now - if any of them are worthwhile, presumably someone else will add them back to the article. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support for the EU Membership declines to 55% in the latest ISRO Survey, 26 December 2005, JTW
• ISRO EU Perception Survey (28 June 2005)
• Brussels’ Sincerity on Turkey’s EU Membership, by Dr. Sedat Laciner
• Middle East Needs Turkey's EU Membership, Ayse HAKIM

The division of the external links into positions "for" and "against" Turkish EU-membership was quite arbitrary or even wrong in some cases. I therefore deleted these misleading sub-headings. In order to re-structure the section, it might well help to re-introduce these categories but then the links would need to be put in a more concise order - and besides "for" and "against", "neutral" might be added as third category (for descriptive articles, scientific analyses, summaries etc.). [16 September 2006]

Kurdish independence

Since the EU recognizes people's right to self determination (see also: Montenegro) it might be possible Turkey will have to agree letting Kurdistan become an independent state. --82.156.49.1 07:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The right to selfdetermination that is accepted in international law is highly qualified. It doesn't apply to the basque region for instance. The EU isn't even happy with the idea of Kosovo independance even tho Milossevich so violated Albanian rights that Kosovo clearly can never again be part of Serbia. Motenegro has a claim because Yugoslavia disolved so sovereignty reveted to the 6 republics. The EU is simply insisting that Turkey respects Kurdish rights which, in the main , Turkey is doing.Dejvid 12:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your are perfectly right in stating that trhe EU is not enthusiastic about new states in Europe. However, your claim that Turkey is, 'in the main', respecting universal human rights in Kurdistan (because that's what it is really about, not specific Kurdish rights) is a sickening, nasty insult to ALL neutral information available on this. Regards, Lucas.

I'll have the liberty to interfere. According to EU talks there had been no mention of such a thing.

Also during Spain's accession into the EU, no one ever mentioned catalanian independece.

Hence I conclude the claim is orriginal research and is not article worthy unless anyone can cite reliable evidence.

--Cat out 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Whom are you answering to? If your remark was intended as an answer to my latest remark, then I have to ask for further clarification? Your example of Catalunia is indeed a perfect illustration of what I said. In Span, the Spannish state does NJOT prosecute individuals nor political parties who advocate more autonomy or independance of Spain. On the contrary, those catalans are free to say so, and have been able, just a few weeks ago, to organise a referendum on this (a referendum where 73% voted for more autonomy!). That's just the opposite of how the Turkish state behaves towards Kurdisch people, and towards other minorities. --Lucas Richards 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is not Spain and Kurds are not Catalans. This analogy or similar ones like Flemmish/Valons in Belgium or Basque or small minorities in Finland etc aren't realistic and they are mostly POV. --Gokhan 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No not even just pov, but orriginal research. The point of talk pages is to debate the article, not politics. Especialy not spanish politics. Turkey and Spanin are on the opposite corners of the european continent... --Cat out 12:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the problem here is the qualifier "it might be possible". After all, it might be possible Turkey is invaded by aliens. The possibility that Turkey will allow Kurdistan to become independent is surely just speculative and should be replaced with something more concrete.

Removed inconsistent sentence

I've removed the sentence that says "This remains an issue even though both Turkey and the EU claim to be secular because of historical and recent anti-Muslim sentiments in the EU .". This sentence has two subjects (Turkey and Eu), but the details (historical and recent anti-muslim sentiments do apply to only one of the subjects of this phrase. Therefore, it must be rewritten (at least). regards, Lucas.

Removed vague sentence "Some current members are also open to criticism on these grounds."

What is the subject of this sentence? Members of the Alevi community (the subject of that line)? Current EU-members (referred to at certain other moments, earlier in this article)? The first option doesn't make much sense. The second option was debated already earlier, but it appears some people are mixcing up symbolic things (like the British queen having to be anglican), that is, things that do NOT affect the life of religious minorities with things that (greatly) influence their daily life. There is also a second error in the reasoning of those who say that the fact that here or there, one could dispute if religious freedoms are generally respected in other EU-countries and that such a critique is sufficient reason why this argument cannot be held against Turkey. The reasoning error is that this line of reasoning basically avoids a decent assessment of the severity of the infractions of religious freedoms. --Lucas Richards 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Another error is that no single Eu-memeber (of the current 25) has ever signed official ministerial nor other governemental agreements, laws or conventions that mean that such a state does not recognise the universal human rights (as enacted by the UN, and embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights, a binding convention in the EU. However, Turkey has recently (in the nineties) signed several of those declarations (like the Cairo declaration of 1990 or 1991, not to be confused with the Allied Pwoers cairo Declaration of 1943). In all those conflicting islamic declarations, the signatories state that for them, the Quran is the highest statdard agaisnt which human rights have to be understood and interrpeted. That alone constitutes a very fundamental infraction that constitutes a fundamental denial of various rights as the religious rights valid in the EU. --Lucas Richards 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, whoever wrote this sentence, please explain what you mean, and if you feel something must be kept here, then reformulate it better. many thanks in advance.--Lucas Richards 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not symbolic that faith schools exist in Britain - in fact the current government is rather keen to extend them.Dejvid 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And what's wrong with faith schools? In Belgium (Flanders as well as the French-speaking part), ALL recognised religions who have asked formal permission to open faith schools have obtained it, so I don't see the point in your remark. --Lucas Richards 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cairo declaration

This was a declaration. It's the sort of thing that governments will sign so as not to be the party pooper. Declarations are not treaties and can be safely signed because they commit the signatories to precisely nothing. Further this is going back to a time when eight current members had only just held free elections. If it is no longer relevant that in 1988 all those states were communist dictatorships why is such a forgotten document still relevant today?Dejvid

Well, if it has so little meaning, why then does Turkey signed it altogether, knowing very well that this constitutes qan explicit incompatibility with the 'acquis communautaire'? --Lucas Richards 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Signing an empty declaration with a host of things (some of which may of been things that Turkey did agree with) is incompatable with nothing. Why di they sign? Why does Bush sign declarations that talk about the need to tackle global warming? Why do politicians waste their time on such pointless conferenceses? I don't know but I'll bet that the hotels had some pretty nice swimming pools.Dejvid 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We apparently very much agree on the waste of time in many 'declarations' of politicians. nevertheless, they DID sign it, just as well as their predecessors did sign the UN declarations on human rights etc. Why they signed, is a questions that raises hypothesis and speculation. We can only observe that they DID sign, so we have to take that into account when discussion the true nature of a certain political system. And let's be honest, if this single signature would be the only one in the same line of going against universal human rights, then we could indeed discard it. However, the ACTIONS of the Turksih governements from the last decennia, governements from many different 'political color's all go in the same line; they all continued funding Sunni Islam, and discriminating Alevi Islam en all other religions. It is this general, consistent tendency that is worrying!--Lucas Richards 07:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is more then telling enough that the pro-Turkish camp continues insisting that this element should be removed from the discussion WITHOUT any relevant argument related to the reasoning itself. --Lucas Richards 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lucas, but i have asked you to provide a citation where this declaration is considered a problem in Turkish-EU relations. Instead you have given me hear say from your friends and colleagues. We dont put our own opinions in these articles, we put the major issues as represented in the relevant literature. Countless times i have asked you, give me a citation, you have not, and i have removed it. So where you get this idea that i have provided no argument, even though i have even asked you on your talk page to give a citation is very confusing. --A.Garnet 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right that for disputed bits of infoirmation, relevant and sufficiently authoritative sources are needed (that means no details accounts by professors, friends, ... or other non-verifiable sources, and certainly no POV of partisan organisations), BUT then you should also accept thet your own contributions AND your delates from parts of other contributions should be held to the same standards!

As for the Cairo Declaration, it appears not sufficiently important, so if also enough other people agree, then it can be dropped (after having followed the Wikipedia procedures, meaning allowing for sufficient time so that others can say what they think). I count on your respect for this procedurfe, and on NOT unilaterally cutting anything anymore without minimum consultation on this page. --Lucas Richards 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As said, the Cairo Declaration is not that important. much more important is the core observation -confirmed by lots of articles, official reports and reports from human rights organisations- that Turkey is not respecting human rights in the way a truly democratic and secular state should do. --Lucas Richards 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why remove explanations in the article without any explanation on this discussion page?

Dear all, part of my contribition of June 12th was removed (by 66.189.104.244, an anonymous person on top), and that without even the slightest explanation, not to say, an exchange of ideas. This is against Wikipedia rules. So if you have good reasons to remove it, then explain them here, then everybody can voice his opinion on this, and only after that consultation with other contributors, a consensus should grow and text parts may be removed if enough agree with that. Just unilaterally removing whatsever one doesn't like is not correct! --Lucas Richards 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, with regards to this sentence:

"Opponents of Turkish membership sometimes cite as example of this conflict between secular law and religious law the Turkey signature to the 'Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam' (5 August 1990)."

Can you give me a citation of Turkeys opponents citing this please? Thanks --A.Garnet 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those on Wikipedia perhaps?Dejvid 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard it myself a few times in public debates and a colleague who attended a scientific seminar in Antwerp, organised by UCSIA (part of the ANtwper university), also mentionned it. Both a german professor referred to it during one of his seminars, as one of individuals during a public debates immediately preceding the debats (with a panel of that german professor, a Swedish diplomat and two Turkish professors°; I will check if I can find references of that scientific congres. --Lucas Richards 07:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What I personally understood from one of the debates I attended, is that governing politicians in several countries exert great pressure on journalists and scientists mentionning this kind of critical facts.--Lucas Richards 07:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, from the hundreds of articles I have read on Turkeys accesion and its controversies, I have never come across the Cairo Declaration on Human rights as a signficant problem. --A.Garnet 11:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange, in your selection of 'hundreds' of articles, that you never did encounter this aspect. That says probably more about what kind of articles you read, then about anything else. Anyway, what is much more important is what is the bottom-line in Turkey's attitude towards the secular, pluralistic democratic state of law as known in the EU. That is the core if this discussion. And indeed, all offocial declarations are much les simportant then the general policy they develop: words are this 100x less importantbthen actions. So let's focus on the ACTIONS of the various Turkish governements of the last few decennia. How did the various, very differing ruling teams in Ankara treat the Sunni Muslims versus all other Muslims and thye other remligions? How did they behave towards dissident novellists? ..... --Lucas Richards 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No there is nothing strange about the articles i have read, and I assure you they are more respectable and impartial than to suggest including such a trivial matter as you are trying to include here. I dont want to get into a debate about Turkey's EU policy here. The fact is the Cairo declaration is not an issue which is raised as problem with the EU. Of the hundreds of news accounts citing potential problems with Turkeys accesion, have you ever seen mention of this declaration as one of them? Infact, if you could find me one it would be helpful. --A.Garnet 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

p.s, i have reverted your edit, not all of it was bad, but telling Turkey "what it fails to realise" is the worst kind of POV to introduce here. --A.Garnet 23:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just have a look at the articles in Financial Times, 5 June 2006, EU Observer 6 June 2006, and City Journal, 4 June 2006. According to all those articles, the most recent EU report on how Turkey 'prepares' its negotiations, is extremely critical. That EU report would be much more critical on Turkey on most all points covered as 'arguments against'. Worse, the EU report says that Turkey appear to make no progress at all, nor show any willingness to do so!--Lucas Richards 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So much of this article needs to be rewritten. When i have time i will hopefully start. --A.Garnet 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Among your contributions, several do constitute appreciations for which no single relevant and independant external reference is given. They have been removed, and external references for the critical arguments have been added. --Lucas Richards 13:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

May I also point out that I've added several arguments pro in earlier contributions. Your assumption that I would be partial is thus contradicted by that fact. I insist that a correct, balanced discussion should cover both the positive and the negative aspects. You appear to prefer 'only' positive arguments, and you appear to want to remove references and explanations about negative factors! --Lucas Richards 13:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No i dont just want positive arguments, but i dont want sentences like "what Turkey fails to realise", or describing its stance on Cyprus as "slighty more cooperative", or insisting on the insertion of a declaration which is barely visible on any discussion in Turkey-EU relations. --A.Garnet 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A)Stop sniping at each other. B)Every fact going in the article needs a notable and reliable source for a citation. WP:RS Dsol 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. Mr. Dierick should sometimes use a more neutral wording, and Mr. Gernet should respect the objective facts that other contributors are adding. His very rapid deleting of information that is critical of Turkey suggests he is not as neutral as we would like. Mesut

Ok Lucas. --A.Garnet 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus Issue

The argument using the admission of Cyprus as an EU member when it is geographically in Asia as a reason for Turkey to be allowed to join is invalid. The article fails to take into account the cultural similarities (language, religion, shared history, the commonwealth etc) that cyprus has with other EU member states already.

It is an answer to those who make a geographic objection. The principle has been established that the barest toehold in Euroupe is enough to qualify. Cyprus doesn't even meet that criteria. It is a geographic answer to geographic objection so it most certaily is validDejvid 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If language were ever to be a criteria then Hungary and Finland too would have problems.Dejvid 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is nobody was saying we're not in Europe until 2004. This EU membership issue is going on for decades, since 60's. But oh! - things got serious sometime ago. And now we're not in Europe geographically, our language and culture is not European, we're historically very bad people, and we're very much muslim :) Shame on us, how we dare to even think about EU? --Gokhan 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to cause controversy, but Turkey only has a miniscule area of Europe, Turkish is not an Indo-European language, the culture is unique - difficult to categorize, and 99% of the population is muslim. I have absolutely nothing against Turkey, and I even want to visit Istambul sometime in the next decade or so, but you have to understand that many of the European states are afraid of the admission of such an alien culture into the EU, and fear there will be a mass influx of immigrants when the Schengen agreement is ratified, also they are afraid that the borders of Turkey are not secure enough, and with Schengen in place it would be easy for terrorists to slip from Iraq and Iran into the EU. There are historical issues at play here as well, the Armenian genocide (whether it happened or not), and the human rights record of Turkey cause concern among some EU members. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lucas revert

Lucas, why are we giving justifications for why the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan plan? If that is the case, should i also devote space to why the Turkish Cypriots accepted the plan?

Good question indeed: how much detail to add? In my understanding, 'details' are to be avoided, except if they are crucial or important for a decent understanding. From that perspective, just saying that the Turkish Cyrpriots said OK, and the other Cypriots NO (including all other historic communities in Cyprus, indeed only 4% of the total population, that according to some sources, also rejected the plan because they also would lose out financlially and not get any decent compensation for the huge amount of property lost!) appears highly unfair given that the Turks for 30 years have been the ones saying no, and that only a massive change in the conditions so drastically switched sides of the table. Therefore, I felt that nuancing the information with objective facts was necessary. --Lucas Richards 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Annan plan article, all the reader must know here is that TC's accepted, and GC's rejected, if they want to find out why they voted as such they can click on the Annan plan article.

Indeed, that's why I think only a minimal extra info (say 1 or 2 sentences) was needed.

As for your second point, Turkey has not "rejected the customs union", why you choose to write in such a deceiving way is beyond me. Turkey chooses not to trade with the RoC government until a solution is found to the Cyprus problem, that is its position, and one that should be explained in its relationship with Cyprus below, not skewed and misrepresented in the history section. And please, stop labelling my edits as vandalism, it is insulting to say the least. --A.Garnet 10:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh shall we start playing the word games that diplomats are paid for? Formally, the Turks did not reject the customs union. They just refused to accept it's implementation in the way that the acquis communautaire says they should! We probably both now that the acquis communautaire is not just something from which you can pick the nice bits and refuse the ones you don't like. It is a whole thing. Moreover, ALL candidates have the opportunities to negotiate custom arrangements when they start negotiating with the EU, but it is NOT DONE and inacceptable in a democratic union as the EU that AFTER signing an agreement (which Turkey did in order to open negotiations), one of the signatory parties unilaterally states that it refuses part of the agreement (as Turkey did with the ministerial declaration immediately after the official, signature, just one day later). Turkey thus revoked it's officially given word! So where is their respect for signed agreements? --Lucas Richards 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And that Turkey would like to force things in its way (have its way for a solution of the Cyprus issue), that is fully understable and clear to anyone, but that is NO justification at all for such blatant and arrogant revoiking of a given word! --Lucas Richards 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted again. You cannot interrupt the history section to flesh out every event relating to Cyprus. --A.Garnet 19:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So you really think that Turkey refusing any UN or other compromise on Cyprus for 30 years and then suddenly, one YES after a major shift in the conditions, can be summarised into just saying that the Turkey accepts the UN proposal, andc that the Greek and other Cyrpriots refuse it? Well, that's really a very balanced view on history. We really don't need any detail at all, just a few lines that give a balanced presentation of the facts. But apparently, any tiny bit which is not positive for Turkey is already to much for you, even if thet refers to 30 years of obstruction and unilateral action, not recognised by any other country in the world. --Lucas Richards 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is an article about Turkeys accesion to the European Union. Why Greek Cypriots voted no is irrelevant to this article, as is why Turkish Cypriots voted yes. It is that simple. Neither is the history section the place to explain Turkey's position regarding the customs union, that goes into the section on inherent issues. I have explained myself countless times now. --A.Garnet 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Being no expert in the matter, I can only give a suggestion, being taking into account all relevant information. For me Turkey must be inside the EU, but I am not proud of Turkey having blocked compromises on Cyprus for 30 years. That should not be censored here! Mesut.

Edits by User:Robert klein

I have reverted the recent edits by User:Robert klein (marked as being minor, but obviously not so), given the additions to the article by this user were merely statements of personal view on the subject, not using a neutral language, and not at all compatible with the encyclopedic tone maintained throughout the article. If there are widely recognized issues regarding Turkish criminals in the EU, I think these should be mentioned in a new subsection under the present "Arguments used against Turkish membership", without introducing a whole new section called "Turkey and crime".

For the subsection "Human rights, democracy, and other internal issues", I am reproducing here the paragraph I have reverted, for making my point more clear:

"In 1919, a Turkish court convicted several Ottoman Turkish leaders of crimes against the Armenians but these Ottoman leaders were allowed to escape to Europe.The significance of these trials was that the post-Ottoman Turkish government was clearly trying to distance itself from the crime of Genocide committed by the Ottoman leaders eventhough they were not much different in regards to their human rights."

The paragraph is again just a statement of personal view on the subject of Armenian Genocide, poor in terms of neutral language use, and it is not clear how this new addition relates to the accession of Turkey to the EU. There already exists a paragraphy summarizing the view of the Turkish government and its opposers on this subject. A better place for this addition, with a neutral language and proper sourcing, would be the Armenian Genocide article already linked, if not mentioned there. Peace, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a few people trying to include personal opinions in this article (unless they are the same person under a different name). In my opinion this article needs a major rewrite, its as if people come and stick in any issue concerning Turkey, even if it is of little consequence to their EU accesion. In my opinion this article should be turned from a For/Against into a "Factors affecting accesion" - That can subsequently be divided into political, economic, strategic etc and explain all the details within those headings. --A.Garnet 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. Let's try! --Lucas Richards 23:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)