Talk:European Union–Turkey relations

Untitled

Citations and closer revisions are desperately needed. Someone with time and knowledge please help.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganpace127.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories

Apparently in this article more categories are needed, I am not quite sure what sort of categories are meant by that. In similar articles there is not much of a difference regarding the categories. Any other views on that?--Joobo (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Joobo: Agree: removed the hatnote. More categories are set on its one category. --Fixuture (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Negotiations on Turkey's accession to the EU are factually frozen

Editor Danlaycock complains against the term "factually frozen" to describe the negotiations on Turkey's accession to the EU. This term is used in several Wikipedia articles on the subject (edited in there by editors other than me), and it is in my view very accurate to describe the situation that has emerged after the Council vote not to open any new chapters. This or similiar formulations are also continuously used by the major media outlets. If you disagree and believe that negotiations are not frozen but alive, please provide a reliable source, and add the description they give, without deleting the mainstream view. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And, dear Danlaycock, your complaint about "duplicates" in formulations in my opinion does not have merit. It is in the nature of a lead (both an article lead and a section lead) to summarize the content of the article respective the section concerned (see WP:LEAD). So there is nothing wrong with duplicate formulations concerning a text body and its lead. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Some anonymous editor on the internet said it, so it must be true!" is not a compelling argument. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Your claim that this formulation is "continuously used by the major media outlets" and is the "mainstream view" seems dubious at best. Can you provide some evidence of this? Google news gets zero relevant hits for the phrase. If you can't, then it cannot be used in the article. Also see WP:BURDEN. The obligation is on those who add dubious and unsourced content to source it to keep it in the article, not on those who dispute the content on the grounds that it is not sourced.

While you may view this as an accurate description, it's clearly contradicted by both the facts and very reliable sources. The premise of your argument (that the decision to not open new chapters implies that chapters which have already been opened are frozen) is obviously logically flawed. The EU has never stated that negotiations are frozen. In fact, Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said a week ago that: "we today can say that on the European Union side the process of negotiation on accession continues." That hardly sounds like "factually frozen" to me. TDL (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have happily added three sources for reference on that sentence no European media I know of voices any doubt about. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. Adding random links after a sentence does not make it sourced. The sources need to actually support the claim. The sources you've cited do not support the claim that the negotiations are frozen. In fact, quite the opposite. The first says quite clearly "Turkey is negotiating to join the EU." The second only says "The European Parliament recently voted to temporarily freeze accession talks with Turkey." It does not claim they have actually been frozen. The EP has no power to actually freeze negotiations. The third speculates on two possible outcomes "either it is declared formally dead or we keep the membership negotiations in principle, while waiting for better days." Again, it doesn't say that negotiations are frozen.

Would you like to try again? And also address the source above, where the EU High Representative in charge of negotations clearly contradicts your claim? Also, a draft resolution on the Commission's Report on Turkey "calls on the Commission and the Member States to suspend the accession talks with Turkey if the constitutional package is implemented unchanged". Why would the be calling for something which you claim has already taken place?

I would again point out that since it is you who seeks to add disputed content to the article, the WP:BURDEN is on you to source and seek WP:CONSENSUS for the change. If you cannot establish a consensus then the content cannot remain per WP:BRD.WP:EDITWARRING to force content into the article against consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE and could lead to your WP:BLOCKING. TDL (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) The accession negotiations have not been formally suspended (yet). Nobody claims they would have been formally suspended (yet), and neither does the formulation "factually frozen" which is in the article and which I suggest to keep, or use a synonymous alternative. (As for formal suspension, there is a broad ongoing public debate about formal suspension, mentioned in this article as such.)

(2) Among the sources already referencing the "factually frozen" sentence in the section concerned is inter alia EP vice president Graf Lambsdorff saying that "in law Turkey is still a candidate, in fact, it is not. Nobody believes in Brussels or in Ankara for that matter that Turkey will eventually join the European Union."

(3) Additional sources which I happily offer for the "factually frozen" term is European Commissioner Johannes Hahn, who oversees EU membership bids, in May saying that the accession process is dead. And Mogherini, in the remarks about not formally suspending negotiations from late April you quote, went on to reiterate that "we are currently not working on opening any new negotiation chapter", in line with the EU Council resolution from December.

(4) If you disagree with the "factually frozen" term (which even the Erdogan mouthpiece media Daily Sabah endorses), please suggest an alternative terminology in good faith, instead of making this a fight trying to remove anything that hints at the highly notable issue from the article, and misleadingly portray the broad ongoing public debate in Europe about ending/suspending pre-accession support a fringe issue.

(5) With respect to your formal arguments, I would also point out that since it is you who seeks to delete content to the article, the WP:BURDEN is on you to seek WP:CONSENSUS for the change. If you cannot establish a consensus then the content remains. WP:EDITWARRING to remove content from the article against consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE and could lead to your WP:BLOCKING. However, I am interested in actually improving the article rather than "winning a fight". I hope that I will be able to get the impression that the same is true for you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This article has a broader topic than Turkey's EU accession process

Not going to edit the lead now again, but I will certainly correct it again in the future. This article has a broader topic than Turkey's EU accession process, and once again I have the impression that some editors miss this broad scope. Accession of Turkey to the European Union is a seperate article, so if you want to focus on that narrow topic, you might wish to edit in that article, do not try to inappropriately narrow this article here. I really fail to understand why it must be a continuous fight to have this article keep its lead in line with its broad topic. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Details in Contemporary Issues

I think this is a great article, but could be improved with more attention to the 'Contemporary Issues' section. These issues are all very interconnected, and I think explanation of why these similar issues keep becoming contentious points would help enlighten people to way these things matter. In addition, a lot of the sections under this header are fairly vague, aside from the 'EU-Turkey Deal' and 'Visa Liberalisation Process' subsections. Adding more content to the other sections, particularly the 'Turkish Offensive in North-East Syria' part, as this is a common topic in the media. Having more information on this would paint a better picture of contemporary issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganpace127 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2018-03-26-ab-021-ailefoto.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Problematic source about Erdoğan's quote against democracy and freedom

In March 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that democracy and freedom were "phrases" which had "absolutely no value" in Turkey, after calling for journalists, lawyers and politicians to be prosecuted as terrorists.

Source of this is Independent. But It seems to be either misquoted or outright false. Not only I couldn't find any video of him saying that but in a Turkish source (https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2016/03/160331_erdogan_brookings) dated 31 march 2016 he says the opposite: "we are continuing our fight without compromising freedom, democracy and rule of law."

In the same article he says "there can be no freedom to terrorists" It means "we can't let terrorist use freedom to terrorize", not "we don't believe in freedom" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.105.39 (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)