Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union/Archive 3

message: :Trolling removed
::Trolling, political ranting, and other nonsense is not welcome anywhere on wikipedia and people had been blocked for doing so in the past. Talk pages exist strictly to discuss the articles content, it was never intended to be used as a forum. So use it accordingly. --Cat out 05:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless section 

message: WHAT!? Turkey will have over taken Ireland, UK, Spain, Italy... WHAT!? Theres no way, Ireland has like the 4th highest per capita in the world. This is total bull shit. Youre not supposed to go after GDP youre supposed to go after GDP per capita. --DerMeister 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics

message: Oops! The map needs adjustment.  Currently it does not show Slovenia as being part of the EU. Indisciplined 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Why revert any explicit mention of Turkey’s military presence in Cyprus in the “Arguments used against Turkish membership” section?  As stated, one country’s nonrecognition of another poses a logical barrier to political confederation between the two.  The military occupation of one such nation by the other poses similar barriers of comparable gravity.  In this case, an entity called “Republic of Cyprus,” whether legitimate or not, is an EU member State in the estimation of both itself, inasmuch as it exists, and the EU.  The Republic of Cyprus claims that over a third of its territory has been occupied by the military forces of Turkey.  Turkey’s military investment in Cyprus is maintained to prevent certain people on the other side of the line, who call themselves “The Republic of Cyprus,” from coming over and taking back the whole island, which they claim is their territory.  The UN has sponsored a ceasefire, but no peace treaty has yet settled the dispute.  As in similar situations (e.g., Korea) this is often perceived as a technical state of war.  Despite this awkward circumstance, Turkey seeks to become an EU member State too.  Despite talks, Turkey has stated it will not remove its military forces from the island of Cyprus.  This issue poses a salient barrier to the proposed confederation of Turkey with the “Republic of Cyprus”—one that goes one major step beyond simple nonrecognition of the latter state by the former.
66.24.243.60 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100 percent, but today UK and US use propaganda so that we forget this "small" problem. They speak about religion so that nobody who think will be against Turkey entry because if person say something he will be fascist.rjecina 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, this article will be rewritten in two-three weeks, so I wouldn't worry too much about its mess at the moment. Btw, the problem with Cyprus (at the moment) is not Turkey's non-recognition of it, but rather Turkey's refusal to open its ports to Greek Cypriot traffic. Cheers! Baristarim 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments used against Turkish membership - Occupation of supposed “Republic of Cyprus”

message: I think that the reference to the Republic of Cyprus as "located in the South" is inaccurate. In fact, the Republic of Cyprus encompasses the whole island (as supported by Wikipedia's article on Cyprus). However, the island is occupied in the north. Therefore, I think that a more accurate description of the Republic of Cyprus is "unoccupied in the South". Ryanwiki 01:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of Cyprus constitutes the whole island 

message: I contend that the nuetrality of this article is dubious, which is impacting the accuracy of the content. Significant changes are being made without any reason given, and there is no discussion or agreement via the talk page (despite the instructions and intentions of the Wikipedia group). The content of this article should not be owned by any one individual, but by everyone as a whole through consensus. I feel this article is being hijacked by a self-declared editor/owner. Ryanwiki 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate content 

message: I marked this article as having its nuetrality and accuracy disputed, and I also nominated it to be checked for its nuetrality.
However, someone rudely removed the markers from the article. May I refer that person to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
:This was discussed before: the whole article is already riddled with POV tags where need be. If you are going to place one on top, then it becomes redundant, that's all. Baristarim 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, given the number of sectional POV tags, the article is in dire need to be checked for its neutrality. I've added a single POV-check tag at the top. Please leave it there. 220.233.224.46 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.. What POV-check are you talking about? :) The article is a pure POV Frankestein sewn together from the wildest bits of information out there anyways! What is there to check? :)Baristarim 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute markers removed 

message: Gosh, do we really need to have these in EVERY section?  Isn't the one at the top enough? 192.45.72.26 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now someone even removed that. I've put one back at the top. Let's keep that there and avoid putting one at every section. Silo7 10:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree.  The one in every section was actually laughable. :)  If there are neutrality and citation concerns though, having this at the top, and only at the top, is reasonable. 192.45.72.26 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality and reference markers 

message: The external links section is a mess. I'm going to try to categorise them to make them more organised. Silo7 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep removing wikilinks as "factually incorrect", in "Relations with neighbours"? Unless this is a subtle hint that Republic of Cyprus is "incorrect".... EpiVictor 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I removed the wikilinks by mistake -- my apologies. My "factually incorrect" reference wasn't in regards to wikilinking, but to the substance of the statement. I think we agree on it's current form? Silo7 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less, although the most obvious change in your edits was -at least for me- removing the wikilinks, which appeared strange, and removing the phrase "located in the South", whose controversial "value", if any, seems very weak to me. Maybe a statement about how Turkey hasn't yet normalized its commercial relations with Cyprus (opening of airports, ports) should be added EpiVictor 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've apologised for accidentally removing your wikilinks -- I'm not sure what else I can do for you. Removing the phrase "located in the South" was, indeed, the key change. Whether or not it is controversial (although look no further than this talk page for evidence), it was simply incorrect. Regarding commercial relations between Turkey and Cyprus, that's a different issue. If you want to add something, go ahead. Silo7 09:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Pro-Accession" links appeared clean, but the "Anti-Accession" links were messy. I've fixed the broken links and replaced irrelevant links with more suitable ones. I didn't yet look at the "Miscellaneous" links. 220.233.224.46 09:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up external links 

message: I removed two links from the "Anti-Accession perspective". They pointed to general websites, whereas it seems the intention was to point to specific articles.
In addition, one of the links referred to the murder of Hrant Dink. I question the use of this disgusting incident as an argument against Turkey's membership of the EU, as it was openly condemned by the Turkish Government, and the Turkish police appear to be seriously hunting down the perpetrators. Silo7 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed two broken links 

message: Administrator intervention needed - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz I accuse KhoiKhoi and Denizz [This user comes from Turkey ] of being impartial. Their objectivity and impartiality are not obvious. Vandalism, including deliberate misinformation about Turkey and Ottoman empire and repeated violations of objectivity will not be tolerated any more.
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...
KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy?
I am not, maybe for the consulate :)
deniz 20:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accession of Turkey to the European Union 

message: Administrator intervention needed ! - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz I accuse KhoiKhoi and Denizz [This user comes from Turkey ] of being impartial. Their objectivity and impartiality are not obvious. Vandalism, including deliberate misinformation about Turkey and Ottoman empire and repeated violations of objectivity will not be tolerated any more.
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...
KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy?
:See WP:AWW. Khoikhoi 10:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source please, not neutral at all 

message: The article is still like some wild zombie, I ran across only one or two articles in worse state in Wikipedia than this one.lol There is so much irrelevant information and tidbits that have nothing to do with the title - It doesn't mention even one piece of useful information about the current general state of accession, let alone the specific negotiations on chapters etc. The structure "for" and "against" is nothing but an invitation to edit-war, really.. The whole article should simply be re-written, and it shouldn't be the wailing wall either. Things that are not in the TR-EU accession protocole shouldn't be in here: bilateral relations of Turkey with other countries should be in their respective articles, and only their repurcussions on the accession should be mentioned. Please do not add random stuff like "all Europe will be Islamized by the end of the century" or "Greeks are persuing the Megali Idea" - it is more than simple trolling: none of these have much to do with this article... Baristarim 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just saying "the whole accession idea is but a joke" would be closer to the truth but it would not be encyclopedic, either :-) EpiVictor 10:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nhahaha :) As is, we might as well rename the article to "Opinions about the accession of Tr to Eu"! Baristarim 07:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The state of the article 

message: "Until the end of the 19th century, this Muslim occupation detached European territories from the direct influence, cultural and economic, of the West and brought these territories directly under despotism."
How were the territories under Ottoman rule any more under the yoke of despotism than those under the rule of Russia, Austria-Hungary, or Prussia? This argument is just another example of the same old double standard that Turkey has always faced from Europe. Turkey was no better than Europe in the 19th century, but it was no worse either. Ahassan05 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Despotism 

message: Since there has been much debate lately, maybe there should be a section concerning secularism (or not) in Turkey. This issue is being raised in BBC and CNN related articles as a European characteristic of modern Turkey. However, the treatment of the Greek Orthodox, the Gregorian Armenians, the Catholics, the Alevis, etc, could be presented in a section, before the analysis of each of the above. In all Turkey-related articles, "secularism" is presented as a basic characteristic of that state; however, reality reveals the opposite... Perhaps a tag that this section of article may contradict itself would do at the present moment. Hectorian 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secularism 

message: An analysis I stumbled over which may prove really helpful in solving the lack of citation issues of this article:  Hope you find it handy. NikoSilver 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: i couldn't see the relevance of armenian issue with turkish accession to EU. i think it must be removed because neither is the resolution of armenian issue a condition in the accession talks nor is armenia memebr of EU. it would be more helpful in a section like "turkish foreign policy" or something like this.88.224.111.57 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really officially Armenian border issue has nothing to do with Accession of Turkey to the EU. Armenia is not a member country besides as in the artice says Romano Prodi said that "Personally, I do not like that the Armenian-Turkish border gate is closed." As also Prodi states this is his personal view. This section must be removed or at least it must be stated that Armenian border issue officialy is not a pre-condition--85.103.38.136 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  armenian relevance 

message: "Yet this point is seen favourably by some, as the Turkish army is known to intervene only when political leadership risks plunging the nation into a religious Sharia state. In effect preventing a demoderisation of the state." This needs reworking. --Jammoe 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A POV point 

message: Just saw the pro/con list of notables... it ommits Durão Barroso, but then he is quoted opposing it. Shouldn't it be added? I'm not doing it  myself just yet to gather some input, perhaps there's a reason for it--Bellum sine bello 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add another against? 

message: The "Arguments used against Turkish membership" doesn't contain enough arguments.
I propose including these arguments:
- The ongoing illegal occupation of 37% of an EU member's territory (Cyprus). Thus Turkey militarily occupies part of the EU which it wants to enter!!! I can't believe this isn't already there.
- Their daily violations of Greek and Greek-Cypriot airspace, ie they violate EU airspace on a daily basis.
- The refusal of Turkey to recognize the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides. The French president Sarkozy has insisted that Turkey must recognize the Armenian genocide.
- The imprisonment of many Turkish writers who research the Armenian Genocides and are jailed due to undemocratic laws whereby any criticism of the Turkish state, Ataturk and recognition of the genocides lands you in jail. Thus the state forces propaganda upon the Turkish masses.
- The lack of religious freedom for Orthodox Christians, most notably the Greeks and Armenians, and the refusal to reopen the theological school of Halki and the numerous Greek churches which have been converted into mosques. Also the non-secularist past where many Greeks were forcefully converted and Turkified in Ottoman times, as were many POW's during the 1919-1922 Greek-Turkish war, and the Istanbul Pogroms, where Greeks were forced to leave unless they converted. There is also a quote from the current Turkish PM Erdogan, where he says that "mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets and the minarets our spears".
- The dangerous extreme nationalism of the Turks, a recent poll found more than 65% of Turks consider themselves to be ultra-nationalist and this has been the cause of several killings such as the assassination of Hrant Dink, and the "bible murders" where 3 protestant bible printers were stabbed to death.
- The fact that Turkish culture is not European but central Asian, and the Turkish people originate from Turkestan (a region in Central Asia including Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Siberia and North-Western China), and are not native to Anatolia. This has been used as an excuse by the leader of the German "Bavarian Christian party". Many Turkish nationalists would also rather unifying with other Turkic countries such as Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and East Turkestan (in China), in a Pan-Turkic Turan type country, and thus don't see themselves as European in the first place.
- They have no European heritage, they merely occupy the lands where Europeans (Greeks, Greek Byzantines/early Christians, and Armenians) built numerous cities and buildings.
- Likewise, all of the ancient Greek ruins and cities in Turkey are never referred to as Greek, but rather "Roman" or "Ancient Anatolian" by the Turkish government, Turkish Tourism and any Travel shows or historical documentaries are obliged to refrain from saying these ruins are "Greek" for permission to film the locations. 
These ALL NEED to be included, especially the first 5!--Waterfall999 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources for these? --Hemlock Martinis 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lovely opinion you have there, which you're entitled to, but, cough, is there a source?  Otherwise has no place in the article, and just adds more bias.--Patrick Ѻ 09:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments used against Turkish membership 

message: Why the dicussions stopped by Sarkozy recently? It would be good to put down on the timeline section to explain the sudden stop.--Lionheart Omega 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Status of Discussions 

message: How do people here fell about putting this to GA soon? Looking through I think it has a good shot, but will probably hit a few rocks so are their editors who will be able to respond to the GA comments? - J Logan t: 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be great! And yes, let's scrap the expert tag. One's not needed anymore. --Hemlock Martinis 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: This article is starting to look very good, IMO, and neutral - congratulations to all who have worked on it.
I suggest, however that the Starting para on Membership issues should be baulked out a bit to explain the hurdles that Turkey must cross before it is to acceed. Can I suggest it here first as it's quite a big change.
The intro currently reads: 
Turkey’s entry into the EU may have profound consequences on the future direction of the EU.
Support to Turkey's entry into the EU varies among the public of the current EU member states. The issues mentioned by some of those objecting to Turkey's EU candidacy can be divided among those inherent to Turkey's situation, those that involve internal issues about human rights, democracy, and related matters, and those concerning Turkey's open external disputes with its neighbours. There is much contention over whether some of these arguments are used by people more as a proxy against peoples true feelings about Turkish membership in the sense that the country is not culturally European and therefore should be denied entry at all.''
This para from "official views" could be moved up:
EU member states must unanimously agree to Turkish membership for Turkish accession to be successful. A number of nations could oppose it, notably Austria, which historically served as a bulwark for Christian Europe against the Ottoman Empire, and France, which is fearful of the prospect of another wave of Muslim immigrants (especially given the poor integration of its existing, mainly Arab (i.e. not Turkish), Muslim minority).
I would expand it and reword along the following lines as follows:
In order to acceed to the EU, Turkey must first successfully complete negotiations with the European Commission on each of the 35(?) chapters of the EU's acquis and then the member states must unanimously agree to Turkish membership. Public opinion in EU countries generally opposes Turkish membership, though with varying degrees of intensity, although political leaders and politicians of the European Union generally support it. Some countries, notably France and Austria, have discussed putting the decision to a referendum.
Turkey’s entry into the EU may have profound consequences on the future direction of the EU. The issues mentioned by some of those objecting to Turkey's EU candidacy can be divided among those inherent to Turkey's situation, those that involve internal issues about human rights, democracy, and related matters, and those concerning Turkey's open external disputes with its neighbours. There is much contention over whether some of these arguments are used by people more as a proxy against peoples true feelings about Turkish membership in the sense that the country is not culturally European and therefore should be denied entry at all.
What do you think? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, that's greatly improved. I support it. --Hemlock Martinis 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The new template needs sources. DenizTC 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership issues 

message: Turkey's relationship with Iraq may soon become an issue here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.21.194 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, specifically with Iraqi Kurdistan. The EU has, after all, urged the Turkish government to be cautious and mentioned any invasion may impact on accession talks. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq 

message: This section is becoming too large in proportion and includes a lot of material that is not pertinent directly to the article's topic. What can we cut out of it? --Hemlock Martinis 23:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section 

message: Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Found in PDF here. Corresponding BBC article here. Let's use the EU report as the framework for the membership issues section. --Hemlock Martinis 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Enlargement Commission 2007 report 

message: This is off-topic, so I moved it here:"===Immigration===
West Germany suffered an acute labour shortage after the Second World War and, in 1961, the Bundesrepublik officially invited Turkish workers to Germany to fill in this void, particularly to work in the factories underpinning the boom, the Wirtschaftswunder ("economic miracle") of the 1960s and 1970s. Turkish citizens soon became the largest group of Gastarbeiter — literally, guest workers — in West Germany. The perception at the time on the part of both the West German Government and the Gastarbeiter themselves was that working in Germany would only be temporary. As in the rest of Western Europe, though, most of the Gastarbeiter became settled permanent residents of their adopted country, bringing over spouses and relatives from Turkey and raising families.
The Merkel government has taken action to slow down Turkish immigration to Germany.
In 1964, due to a severe labor shortage, the Dutch government formally invited Turkish men and women to come and work in the Netherlands. Most of the guest workers ended up in those places where there was a labor shortage, mostly in low educated jobs." Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved "immigration section" 

message: I have just created a map illustrating the population of turkish people living in Europe. It may be quite relevant for this article
Photosofturks (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: Many sections look like copies of the corresponding sections in the general discussion of Turkey. This doesn't add any information on the discussion of accession (or not, for the opponents). Shouldn't this articles be cleaned up in order to ensure that it only contains relevant information for the questions directly related with accession?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.9.65 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, a discussion of accession should not look like a tourist brochure, not like a propaganda leaflet. I'll help you with cleaning up the propaganda from this aqrticle. Rudi Dierick (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove sections that are irrelevant for the discussion of the aspects of accession or not 

message: Recently, User:Pantepoptes, as part of his drive to essentially re-write this article from scratch, has been expanding the Cyprus dispute section of this article way beyond the scope of this article.  This  is the perfect example.  Statements made by the Turkish PM from over 30 years ago have no place in this article, and such edits seem to me like naked attempts to justify the invasion.  The section on the Cyprus dispute should only contain a very brief description of the origins of the dispute and should focus more on recent developments and how these impact Turkey's accession.  Not go into excessive detail about the 1001 ways why the Turkish invasion was "justified".  --Athenean (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cyprus dispute is an ongoing and very serious issue which has profound effects on Turkey's membership talks. I only basically covered the events that lead to the conflict in a single paragraph. Solid and referenced facts should not be hidden under the carpet. I also wrote that Turkey breached the Treaty of Guarantee's Article 2 by supporting the island's division in 1983. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Ecevit's attempt to justify the invasion have to do with this article?  Can you please explain that?  Including such things is highly POV. And just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs to this article.  --Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ecevit is the historical figure who ordered the military operation, so "whether it may reflect the truth or not", his view is important. Also, the Cypriot intercommunal violence of 1963-1974 is a "solid fact" and not something which Ecevit invented. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Such things are way beyond the scope of this article.  Your edits are moreover completely one-sided in a naked attempt to justify the invasion.  --Athenean (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am adding "every single detail" with "full nakedness" to describe in a single paragraph the events that lead to the current situation. But the truth often hurts, doesn't it? I also wrote that Turkey breached the treaty by supporting the island's division in 1983. As you can see, I can stomach the errors of my state, but most Greeks and Armenians (with the psychological reaction of "feeling defeated") like to see the things as "we are 100% angels, they are 100% devils." Pantepoptes (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it is quite clear from the above that talking to you is a waste of time.  You are not interested in collaborating, and are now resorting to personal attacks.  Goodbye.  --Athenean (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right. Pantepoptes has shown no indications that he understands, or wants to understand, what this article is about. The cyprus part of the article is a subsection of the section titled "Turkish membership issues" - but the content that Pantepoptes is adding has nothing to do with "Turkish membership issues". In fact, almost nothing that is in the "Turkish membership issues" section has anything actually to do with Turkish membership issues! Forexample, nothing that is in the religion subsection has any connection to "Turkish membership issues", and the main "religion" issue that is connected to it isn't mentioned at all (Turkish laws that are intended to enforce secularism, such as the headscarf ban issue). Same for the economy section - it reads like a PR handout from a Turkish embassy, but has nothing to do with Turkish membership issues! Issues that are connected to it, such as the convergence of quality control standards, work conditions and hours, and so on, aren't mentioned at all. Nor is the issue of agricultural subsidies mentioned (based on its output, Turkish agriculture is more heavily subsidised that in the EU and there is a question if this can be continued after membership), or any of the many other real issues. Meowy 16:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Cyprus issue, all that is needed is a sentence to the effect of:  In 1974, Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus in response to a coup intended to annex the island to Greece.  Full stop.  Everything thing else, such as trying to cram as many excuses and justifications as possible is superfluous to this article and also POV.  Consequently, I will remove any such superfluous passages.  Also agree about the economy:  It might as well have been written by the PR section of the Turkish embassy.--Athenean (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentence on "Ecevit's view". However, the rest is well-referenced, neutral and important data which have links with both sides of the dispute and do not represent only a single side's view. One of the references (on the Treaty of Guarantee) is actually the "government website" of the Republic of Cyprus (the Greek side). Pantepoptes (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyprus dispute 

message: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject 210.56.73.237 (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Pantepoptes has just removed a lot of legitimate content, such as the deleted "Turkish membership issues" section, and most of the deleted "Effect upon the EU" section. Disputes that are connected to the accession talks - such as the Cyprus dispute and the Article 301 law - are obviously legitimate content, yet they have been erased. So too has the "Public reactions" section, which, although rather POV as currently written, contained some valid content. Meowy 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above users that the article in its current form needs cleanup.  There is absolutely no need to mention the Ottoman Empire and the election of 1935.  The article as it is now focuses too much on the past and providing background rather than the accession itself.  --Athenean (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: How about the "let's all cut it out and give each other a hug" article? :) Pantepoptes (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Pantepoptes and Pipdebag are socks of the indef blocked User:Shuppiluliuma and have been indef blocked as well .  I propose rolling back the article to its original version, before this individual's edits.  --Athenean (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to look at what he/she has added rather than just removing it all because of the sockpuppet status. Having looked at it, I think it all should be removed based on its content. BTW the Queen Elizabeth quote ("an asset for the European Union") is not a quote by her at all - looking at the cited source it is actually the words of whoever wrote the source article. Meowy 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please note top of page "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject

message: This bot has detected that this page contains an image, :Image:TRNC_location.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at :File:TRNC location.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:TRNC_location.png]] 

message: Can we create list of countries supporting accession of Turkey to the European Union? Also for groups of EU Parliament... --195.110.6.24 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support / Against 

message: Elizabeth II is the Queen of 16 different countries, not just the UK.  She has no real political power and she has to always remain neutral between the opposition and ruling parties.  I really don't think a quote from her is worth enough to put into this article.
-AlexTG (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Queen is giving the official UK government position. If you want to hear it from the Foreign Secretary, here it is: from UK Foreign Office website: On arrival in Istanbul Mr Miliband said: 'I am pleased to be back in Turkey for my fourth visit as Foreign Secretary. Turkey is a key partner for the UK.  And it's a European partner: I am very clear that Turkish accession to the EU is important and will be of huge benefit to both Turkey and the EU.'EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I think sourcing the UK position from David Miliband and the UK Foreign Office website makes perfect sense.  --Athenean (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, much better to hear it from a member of the government. The above quote would be a good replacement-AlexTG (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Sure.  I know I don't like quotefarms.  --Athenean (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Lizzy 

message: The section "Recognition of Genocides in the Ottoman Empire" was recently been removed.
I did a search for "genocide turkey EU" and found quite a few articles which suggest that the Armenian genocide has in the past been an important factor in Turkey's bid.  So I think there needs to be a section on this (even if officially it is no longer a factor, it should be there for historical purposes).  I have therefore reverted the removal.  The section currently doesn't explain how the genocide is to linked with EU accession though so it needs to be fixed up.
The relevant news articles I found:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531079/Turkeys-EU-plans-threatened-by-genocide-dispute-with-the-French.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1530056/Turkey-must-face-up-to-past-says-EU.html
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1056400.html
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5814748/Armenians-EU-wrong-on-Turkey.html
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1470603.htm
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Brussels-to-decide-Turkish-bid-to-join-EU-2127.html
http://www.asbarez.com/52115/eu-to-press-turkey-on-recognizing-armenian-genocide/ 
-AlexTG (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide Section Removed 

message: Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Тиверополник (talk • contribs) 
: Not done:  is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MK wiki 

message: I uploaded this: :Image:Turkish_EU_accession_logo2.png
I propose that we show both logos in the article - maybe only one in the infobox, but somewhere in the history section to show the initial variant too. Alinor (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logo 

message: Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a Muslim-majority nation as claimed here. It is a Muslim-plurality nation. Please correct. InArm (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Religion" section

message: There is a note about part of the chapters (these blocked by veto of Cyprus itself), but the others are frozen by the EU - because Turkey does not apply fully the protocol regulating Association Agreement & Customs Union to the new EU members admitted in 2004. "Not fully" here means - not to Cyprus (I think it was that Cypriot ships, aircraft and maybe trucks are still not allowed to enter Turkish territory/facilities/etc.) - the decision for these was taken by the Commission (or Council) of the EU - a short explanation and source link in the text would be welcome. Alinor (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  chapter frozen 

message: This is the real question when Turks don't want EU membership.  China and Japan do fine without EU membership.  It's basically unnecessary.  Look at the EURO.  Look at Greece.  The EU may be breaking up because of debt that weaker states built up. --Ericg33 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Turkish government wants EU membership? 

message: I responded to a request  here. 
I think this article is of high importance to the EU (but not top).
Also I think it is currently a strong B class article but not quite ready for GA, A, or FA because:
* Introduction/Lede section. Should be longer and more a summary, see WP:LEAD. Also the image in the lead is not informative, and the two foreign relation templates are a bit unweildy.
* Timeline. Layout is not very nice (minor remark)
* Status of acquis chapter. This section is merely a table and needs an introduction, explanation.
* Foreing relation: Greece - Too short a section, remove or expand
* Religion - very short subsections. Rewrite.
* Public reaction - same, too short subsections. 
I think with all these issues to be solved before you have a chance at GA review, I think this article is in its current state a definite B (no more, no less). Good luck with the improvements Arnoutf 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested assessment

message: I just went through the article and couldn't find any obvious reasons why Turkey wish to join the European Union. We have the opinions of european countries and leaders as to why it should or shouldn't join the EU, but nowhere is it stated Turkey's motivations. Unless I'm missing something here, I think this should be mentioned brieftly in the introduction, and then we could have a section talking about it. Laurent (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what struck me after reading the article too. It's not clearly explained why Turkey is seemingly willing to jump through so many hoops to join the EU. This seems like important background information to me. --Joey Roe (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Turkish politicians do not express the true reasons - the prospect of EU membership is being used as a way for them to avoid attempting to solve Turkey's pressing economic and social problems (caused by massive over-population and under-employment). "It will all be solved by EU membership", they just say, "so we don't need to do anything longterm to solve it ourselves". Meowy 19:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Recognition of the genocide is definitely not a precondition to joining the EU.  It probably is true however that lack of recognition could cause problems in getting the support of some EU countries.  If someone can find a reliable source which discusses this then I would think it could be a good addition. -AlexTG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey's motivations