Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

Messages dated before 16 December were moved here from Talk:Enlargement of the European Union when the section on Turkey was exported.

Democracy, secular state as preconditions to join!

Certain persons apparently object against information that Turkey has problems fulfilling the criteria for joining the EU, more specifically that Turkey still privileges Islam en musliums over other religions. Someone made a comparison with Greece. However, both for Greece, then, as for Turkey, now and tomorrow, the seperation of chutch and state is a clear, expliciet and important condition. This conditions must be met BEFORE talks can open. Greece, contrary to Turkey, knew only minor issues that since have been removed. This is: situation was already quite good for Greece and improved since. In Turkey, situation of treatment of religious minoritoes by the state is horribly bad a,d even deteriorating in cetain aspects!

Apparently, according to Mr. Katsaris, the situation in Greece has not improved, and major discriminations would still exist. Can anybody else confirm this? can Mr. Katsaris put forward objective and athoritative evidence. Thanks in advance, --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, please respect this requirement! Otherwise, you are going squarely against the explicite rules of the Wikipedia project! --Rudi Dierick 10:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have a quite huge problem figuring out the distinction between "secular state" and "full separation of church and state". You are arguing that Turkey still "privileges" Islam -- Greece still privileges the Greek Orthodox Church. Ireland for a very long time privileged the Catholic Church - perhaps it still does. The United Kingdom privileges the Anglican church. But Ireland and Greece and the United Kingdom are still secular states.

So, for you it is OK that Turkey continues sending out its imams on missionary missions, and to pay for missionaries, and have state-paid imams consacrate polygamous mariages, forbide the Greek-orthodox church to re-open training schools for its Turkish clerics etc.! Moreover, you comparethe PAST for Ireland and Greece, with the TODAY for Turkey. Also in Greece and ireland, as soon as there are others then catholics and greek-Orthodox n the typcal minimal numbers for a religion to et recognised, those states will recognise them. The privileges the fomer state religion enjoyed there have been removed! In the meanwhile, theer is no songle reason that can justify for Turkey not paying clerics of the Greek-Orthodox Church when the state does fund clerics from the Islam. After all, the Greek-orthodox church was present overthere from even long before the islam! Also, the UK does recognoise and funding other religous organisations then just the Anglican church! Apparently, you are unaware from that!--Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, no, I was comparing TODAY for Greece with TODAY for Turkey. TODAY Greece privileges the Greek Orthodox Church. Today the United Kingdom privileges the Anglican church. It privileges e.g. by allowing its heads of state to be a part of only that religion.

Come on. This is trivial! Do you really mean to say that Turkey payin thousands of imams and nothing at all can be set at an equal footting as the UK having only Anglican's for hed of state? Anywa, this is not at all meant by the COE's Framework Convention for the Protection of national Minorities, (1) --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YOU think the one trivial and the other important, which is why I'm calling it blatant POV. And the Council of Europe has nothing to do with the European Union, btw. Aris Katsaris 01:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like this gives 1 black hole and 1 inaccuacy:

1. You avoid discussing my arguments, you don't add any evidence for your point of view of reality. So, if I would have to apply your logic, I should have to cut anything you wrote and that I don't like. I won't, as that would be arrogant censorship, even after contrary evidence was provided!--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. The EU Commission explicitely refers to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2), agreed in the Council of Europe as one of the guiding documents concerning the standards both current and any new member state will be judged! In a course on European integration, prof.Koen Lenaerts 3, explained there is a fair deal of cooperation between EU and non-EU institutions, including the COE. Is he wrong? Or will you again pretend to know it much better then, in this case, a distinguished professor of law?--Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TODAY Greece has no legally recognized Mosques in Athens even if hundreds of thousands of Muslims exist in Athens. But that's quite irrelevant actually, since my main point is you've not provided the references I've asked for you. Aris Katsaris 22:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, but is the fact that Greece still continues discriminating (you're correct in this), altough it promised to improve things some years ago, any reason why the European union should as from now lower its requirements and accept any state that also maintains such discrimination? If I kill my neighbour, is that a justification for you that you should be able to do so to? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say "lower its requirements" when you've never proven that such requirements ever existed. The EU isn't forcing United Kingdom to allow Roman Catholic monarchs. The EU isn't forcing Greece to abolish the Greek Orthodox Church's position as dominant religion. Aris Katsaris 01:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Don't you have any answer on my argument that one past error does not justify making the same error again? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. I did put forward the argument that the religious quality of a monarch is NOT relevant to how well a state respects the religious freedoms of its people. That that is irrelevant, and never mentionned in the officiel documents as the Framework Convention ... But apparently, that is a source you prefer not to know, or to discard. Well, I fear that such a personnal judgement where you feel mandated to discard the COE's conventions, makes any discussion very difficult. --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. You insist that I should put forward evidence for anything you don't agree with. So, how about you putting forward evidence for your disputed claims? Why not start giving the good example yourself? For your claims in religious discrimination in 3 countries, you should, according to your own rules, put forward evidence for all thee! I'm waiting! --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And still waiting!--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You might object that, while agreeing, it remains unfair that in the meanwhile, Greece is in. However, hitting a stone once is enough, otherwise we would be worse then donkey's. Isn't it? I don' see at all why the EU, having made this error with Greece once, should now repeat it once more! And for the UK and Ireland, please check public expenditure for religious training and salaries for clerics of minority religions in those countries. I've once met myself students at a Britisch university training to become a rabbi and a roman catholic priest (alongside some going for Anglican minister)! --Rudi Dierick 23:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You still think this is an argument between us about whether Turkey should join. You think this is an argument about what EU requirement *should* be. It is not. It is an argument about truth and falsehood. If you imply that EU requirement say that member-state must not favour a specific religion, that's false. Aris Katsaris 01:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have for that? When anybody reads the latest draft constitution of the EU, and the COE's Framework Convention on Minorities, then one finds very explict requriements on the mandatory non-discrimination between religions! Or don't you like the EU's constitution? --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And Mr. Katsaris, before wielding the axe and censoring again, you didn't find the time to read the draft EU constitution? Nor the COE's Framework Convention on Minorities?--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get a grip, get some sanity, and get your facts straight. If you say that "seperation of chutch and state is a clear, expliciet and important condition", and you mean that as *full* and absolute separation between the two, then please do provide the reference to the EU decision that declared such a clear and explicit condition, because I've very definitely disputing the FACTUAL accuracy of your words -- aka I think you are dead dead wrong. Aris Katsaris 16:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, if yo still need being informed or convincced that a secular state with a seperation from chruch and state is a pre-condition, that again disqualifies one person as rather incompetent to say something about this! It is plainly stupid that you still insist on this! You are making an idiot out of yourself by pretending you don't know. --Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You aren't being coherent. There are specific conditions and preconditions -- if you claim that full separation of church and state is one of them, then I definitely want to see some references, or I'm gonna keep deleting misinformation you add. Your comments on my person are irrelevant. Aris Katsaris 22:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, let's start a war between censorship and free speech! Is that what you want? It is plainly stuupid that I should have to provide detail information to anybody who first handles the axe -cutting away everything he does not like . If you wpoud be sincerely interested yo find out more abou this, the frst things to do is ask, and not start behaving like a brute!

It's not a war between censorship and free speech, it's a censorship between truth and falsehood. You support falsehood, I support truth. You make claims you can't factually support, I then removed your errors, falsehoods and lies. Aris Katsaris 00:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And God has given, you the supreme right to be the judge? You arrogant bastard! --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moreover you keep on adding POV attitudes. You claim that Armenia did nothing to warrant such a painful economic embargo? Says who? You? Many would also say that Armenia is currenly illegally occupying part of Azerbaijan.

Aha, you admit that Turkey embargoes Armenia because of its war with Azerbaijdian! Have a look in international, neutral fora, and you'll see international mediation efforts were going on between Armenia and Azerbajdian, but that Turkey side-stepped these, and then unilaterally started an economic war out of solidarity with its ISLAMIC neighbour! Well, that again proves that Turkey feels that islamic solidarity goes ABOVE international rule of law! So, one reason more why Turkey is UNFIT and UNCAPABLE to join the EU!--Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not mine or yours to either "admit" or "not admit". It's not mine or yours to input arguments about whether Armenia deserves or doesn't deserve an embargo. It *does* fall on you to indicate WHO ever said that the embargo on Armenia consistutes a problem for Turkey's entry on EU. The Wikipedia article is not a place to state opinions shares only by *you*. Aris Katsaris 21:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen any evidence from yoyr side either, so why should you be so much better then me that you don't have to provide any evidence to justify your axe-wielding?

What side? How can I prove the non-existence of people using the Armenia embargo as an argument against Turkey's entry? I've already proven the falsehood of your false claim about Turkey not claiming a connection between war and embargo.Aris Katsaris 00:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haha, you're now turning the scientific method upside down. Copernicus and Galilei also had such arguments against them. Well, just do a search on Google, and see what you can find! I did this in French and in Dutch already, and found several mentions, including from, not wonder, organised Armenian group in EU-countries AND from members of the European Parliament (you do know that the Eur. Parliament has officially recognised the genocide by Turkish state on Armenian civilians?). --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the existence of that economic embargo is quite clearly mentionned in officiel EU-documents (see ref's on this page). But, of course, you don't like this evidence, isn't?

The only ref you claimed to have about the Armenian embargo I saw failed to contain any mention of Armenia at all. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But either way, no single European of importance seems to have ever used the embargo on Armenia as an argument against Turkey's entry. Nor have they ever used the funding of imams as such an argument. Please do stop using the words "critics" to refer to your own opinion alone. Aris Katsaris 17:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aha, Mr. katsaris -your real name or just an alias for a Turkish militarist?- is the one deciding on which European voice comamnds respect, and which voices can e neglected! Just note that in a democracy, EVERYBODY's opinion counts, yours just as well as mine, so stop applying censorshop on people with oher opinions then yours! That's called censorshop!--Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm Greek, you idiot. And I'm quite tired of little Nazis using wimp-out language to push their POV. I note you failed to find a single reference to such "criticisms", other than your own beliefs. Which means that your plural reference in the text to "critics of Turkey's entry" is actually a reference to the many voices in your own head. Sorry, but I won't allow corruption of the article by mixing the *actual* issues as named by those that actually know the EU's requirements or hold national mandates, versus the illiterate and ignorant ramblings of idiots suffering by multiple personality disorder. Aris Katsaris 21:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Their are no property rights on articles in Wikipedia, and you don't have any superior right to judge on whta's good enough and what not. --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for some links to external references on the very dubious state of Turkish democracy and secular state:

AI report on Turkey, 2003 Human Rights Watch overviewHuman Righrs Watch on torture in Turkey --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So? No interest in evidence anymore?--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I had ever disputed the dubious state of Turkish democracy or secular state, you'd be first to know. I disputed very specific facts, which you've not yet been able to support. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More factual mistakes in your additions: [1] "Concurrent with the border closure, Turkey instituted an economic embargo against Armenia, saying the ban on trade would not be lifted until a lasting Karabakh peace settlement was negotiated and Armenia withdrew its forces from occupied Azerbaijani territory." So you seem to have either lied or erred when you claimed that Turkey ever states that the war with Azerbaijan had nothing to do with this. Aris Katsaris 22:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well well, so this report admits that it applies open economic pressure against one neighbour in order to force it to make peace with another one. Whether you like it or not, but from EU member states, it is expected that they submit dispues to international arbitrage, and that they do not start with unprovoked hostilities! So, again one reason the more why Turkey is rather not fit for joining the EU! --Rudi Dierick 23:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

YOU STILL DON'T FUCKING GET IT. Whether *you* think Turkey is fit or not fit is irrelevant. For your information I *also* think that Turkey is currently unfit for membership. But that's IRRELEVANT. My opinion about Turkey is as irrelevant as yours.

Oh yes, and God said so. I'm just a fucking irrelevant idiot, and M. Katsakis is wasting precious time tryoing to shed some heavenly light on me. Thanks the Lord! Let's pray for all those ignorants idiots!

Yes, you are a fucking irrelevant idiot. Couldn't have said it better myself. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only things relevant are the factual accuracy and NPOV stance of the article. And you've violated both -- intentionally I think. Your point about Armenia is FACTUALLY wrong. Your claim about the need to fully separate church from state is FACTUALLY wrong. Your belief that states are "expected to submit disputes to international arbitrage" is blatant POV. Your argument about polygamy as related to gender-equality is likewise POV. Your claims about the importance of various preconditions you invented are likewise insane POV since you can't actually make actual references to such preconditions for membership being real -- you simply *believe* such preconditions should exist. If you keep on adding your babble, I ask that we resolve this through mediation. But it would be best if you came to your own senses. Aris Katsaris 00:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So what is not factually correct in what I stated? Did you ever read articles on non-discrimination in the draft EU constitution? Or don't you like that document? And what's wrong about my facts on Armenia? Was the border open while I said it was closed? And since when is international arbitrage not the norm anymore? Since when can every state immediately ressort to military and economic force? No references? And since when is polygamy acceptable in a democracy respecting the equal rights of men and women? You didn't read any of the references I listed? or you dont't like them? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your so-called "facts" on the Armenian situation was that Turkey claimed it had nothing to do with the war on Azerbaijan. That was a lie as I showed you with my link. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As if a state would ever admit to something like that. For as far as an appreciation of the nature of the responsibilities in slving this unilateral Turkish border closure, see the explicite wordings in the EU reports I referred to! --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More factual mistakes: "This recommendation and eventual accession now faces democratic approval processes in European and member states legislative procedures."

Well, if you understand Dutch, I can send you copy of an email from a certain Jean-Luc Dehaene on this. He explicitely states that during this process there will be a tight monitoring of Turkey's behaviour, more even so given that Turkey has more things to improve then ALL other members states who recently joined (at the tim of their opening of negotiations)! or is Mr. dehaene also an irrelevant idiot for you, somebody who's meaning doesn't count in the eyes of our greek self-declared supreme judge!--Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is in english and you clearly stated that "this recommendation" "now faces democratic approval processes in European and member states legislative procedures". That's WRONG. Aris Katsaris 14:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh so silly. I clearly mentionned something more general "recommendation and eventual accession", and not just the 'recommendation' as you ripped this out of a whole. Buy the way, in Belgium, parliament has the right to vote NO on both questions separately! --Rudi Dierick 18:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Study on the meaning of the word "and", idiot boy. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The eventual accession *will* face democratic approval processes in European and member states legislative procedures (same as all countries' accession will), but the recommendation is just a recommendation, and doesn't need to be approved by any legislative procedure at all. That's just wrong, and another thing that needs be removed. Aris Katsaris 00:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really believe this yourself? That there won't have to be no majority votes in the parliaments of ALL current members states -including Cyprus!- as well as referendums in many member states before Turkey will be able to join? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And don't pretend I said other things then what I said: I clearly said that the it is the accession that requires democratic approval, not this current state of discussions and recommandations. As far as I know, but I might be wrong, this recommandation requiries only a democratic OK vote from the European Parliament.

You clearly said that "this recommendation" will now face democratic approval processes. You can't even read the stuff you write, and you expect to comprehend the stuff *I* write. And ofcourse the accesion of Turkey will face democratic approval processes SAME AS EVERY OTHER ACCEDING COUNTRY. Aris Katsaris 14:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, indeed, both the recommendation+opening f negotiations, andf the later, eventuel accession will gace democratic approval! Here in Belgium, there is quite some debate and eventual voting o this stage (recommendation) of the discussions, whether the national governement should inist on a more 'average' or even a more strict interpretation of the Copenhagen criteria; later, of course, there might be another round of debates and possibly a vote of confidence on the opening of negotiations, and then on in a third stage, if it goes that far, another round of debate and then certainly voting of accession. Evidence is in Ducth (and probably some in French). --Rudi Dierick 18:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And be sure there will be +/- 30 different majorities needed, 25 in national parliaments and then some more in decisive referendums (some are only consultative; thers are constitutionally required). So, 30 majorities needed, isn't that a beautifill democratic approval process for the accession? --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are either insane or English-illiterate or a blatant liar. I'm done talking with you. I'll keep on revising the article, deleting your lies, accepting only facts you've adequately referenced as you've proven utterly utterly untrustworthy in your input, having gone as far as revising both your text and that of others -- you even excised after-the-fact my name from your first post in this thread -- Why? Would you hate people to see how you invited me in this thread by naming me? Aris Katsaris 14:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No comments on the 30-somewhat necessary yes-votes? Is yelling and shouting the only thing you're able to? And of course, I forget that this self-declared 'Uebermensch' feels that he has a superior right to decide what's good enough!

Why should I comment on something that I already commented on many posts ago when I said "The eventual accession *will* face democratic approval processes in European"? Study on the meaning of the word "and", idiot boy. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there is some good reading overhere at x

Other issues hindering Turkey's accssion

The EU itself requires a general alignment of any new member state on the so-called 'acquis communautaire' (or acquis' in short). From 1 several failures are explicitely noted for Turkey, p. 16: "Turkey remains in the black list of the secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State controls. Cypriot vessels or vessels having landed in Cyprus are still not allowed in Turkish ports" --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the EU's desire that Turkey stops its conflict w. Armenia, following implicit quote: "The accession of Turkey would extend the EU’s borders to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Through Turkey the EU could have a stabilizing influence in Southern Caucasus, provided that Turkey is willing to try to solve conflicts with its neighbours already before its accession (p. . As Turkey has no conflicts with Azerbaidjan, nor with Georgia, this can ONLY refer to the open conflict with Armenia. And indeed; it continues: "In particular, its relations with Armenia will need to be improved with the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of the land border which is currently closed." --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like this quote comes from a related document 'ISSUES ARISING FROM TURKEY’S MEMBERSHIP PERSPECTIVE', to be found on 2

So, who claimed that it was just me or only other irrelevant persons who advocated that Turkey should end its conflict with Armenia? Well, as from you, Mr. Katsakis, you should be informed that is is exactly the European Commission itself who asks Turkey to stop its hostilities against Armenia! --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the 'acquis communautaire' in the area of justice and home affairs, the recommendation says: "progress is required in important areas such as the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption.--81.82.136.43 09:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the relevant section on Turkey on this page should be condensed and summarised, with a link to a more expansive page on Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Turkish issues cannot dominate a page about so many countries and their accession prospects/status. zoney ♣ talk 10:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds a good suggestion to me. maybe all country specific sections shuld be moved towards dedicated Wikipedia entries. --Rudi Dierick 19:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do remember saying that it was a blatant falsehood when you either erred or lied claiming that Turkey puts no connection between her embargo on Armenia and the Nagorn Karabakh conflict. But even though I provided the reference that proved you wrong, you keep on adding what has now definitely become a knowing lie on your part. Aris Katsaris 14:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the 'Issues ...' document, an official EU document, more specifically a 'COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT', ref. Brussels, 6.10.2004, SEC(2004) 1202, it mentions Armenia. In this report, the EU also suggests, as far as I understand it, that Turkey should start doing something it has failed to do untill now, being "contribute to easing tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the dispute concerning Nagorno-Karabakh". Indeed, contribute to easing tensions is something rather different from participating in the conflict trough applying economic pressure. --Rudi Dierick 19:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You know I've just downloaded the link you provided, and a search through the text shows no single mention of the word "Armenia", let alone mention of opening of land borders or establishing democratic relations. So, unless you are referring to some other PDF file, sorry but I'll have to assume you are blatantly lying again: There's the quote about the Paris Memorandum, but none of the quotes about Armenia. A liar again?Aris Katsaris 14:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like references got mixed up. Just have a look at the equally official EU report 'Issues arising from Turkey's membership perspective'. It mentions Armenia six times. Have a good reading! Anyway, looks also like your 'general understanding on, and knowledge of' tensions between Turkey and Armenia is massively out-of-dated given that everything I said is mentionned in these official EU reports, while none of your assertions on this got confirmed!

So, now it's your turn to start providing evidence for your claims and supporting the cuts you made! --Rudi Dierick 19:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does noone else see a problem with POV here?

Am I the only one who will have to keep on removing blatant POV like Rudi's so-bad-it's-funny "This line of reasoning is quite bizar, but very revealing; as the EU defines itself very explicitely as a secular club, even removing a historic references towards christianity from its consitution-being-written, then why shoud Turkish governement and protagonists of Turkey joiningthe EU insist on seeing the EU as a christian club?"? Does noone else care about removing such crap from Wikipedia?

How about the POV of "The tight economic embargo against Armenia, although this country didn't commit an hostility of any scale warranting such a painfull economic embargo"? Am I the only one seeing this as unacceptable POV, utterly unbecoming of Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia now taking positions on what warrants painful economic embargos and what doesn't?

How about Rudi's several exclamation marks in the text? Am I the only one who sees both a stylistic and POV problem with these?

If none of you can bother with removing the POV, atleast do help him improve the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. Aris Katsaris 14:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There indeed are still issues with the content (IMO), but I have left all points intact (though removing detail too in-depth for this page that is not just about Turkey). If there is disagreement on my version, please rework, not revert. I have been considering protecting the page, but I figured that getting involved might help more. If the revert war continues, I shall ask another admin to protect the page (their decision as to which version). Rest assured that the page history shows clearly the party at greatest fault in this dispute. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. zoney ♣ talk 18:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your "compromise" version would be fine with me. You are much better at reworking stuff than I am, who am unfortunately more prone to deleting offensively-unWikipedian content. Aris Katsaris 21:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doubtful contents for which the contributor after request can not provide references within one one or two weeks can and should be deleted if it can not be reworked into something acceptable. We should keep this encyclopedia free from nonsense, esp. for such an important subject such as this one. I have the impression that Rudi does not supply sufficient references for his assertions but that is a mere impression and I do not have time to study the evidence. Andries 20:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Not sufficient evidence? For most of the items disputed by Mr. katsakis, I've provided officiel reports from Eu and COE that confirmed one by one those items. the number of statements I wrote, that Mr. katsaris hotly and o so diplomatically disputed, and that then were EXACTLy confirmed by the official reports, it's a long list. For none, Mr. Katsaris was able to provide authoritative evidence that said the oppsosite of what I wrote! Moreover, ALL the references in the article as it is today were added by me, that makes up 100%. Sofar, Mr. katsaris has not been able to provide anything close to that. Verify the references and in the article and the discussion yourself. So, I'm really very surprised by your statement that I consider wholly erronuus, unfair and indeed, superficial (as, you somehow honestly acknowledged by saying you had no "time to study the evidence"). Moreover, I don't consider it according to the sipirit and the guidelines for somebody who did not (yet) had the time the study, already to propose deleting!

Furthermore, also have a look at the totally different approaches by Mr. katsaris and Zoney.

In short: I feel, also in the absence of any clarfication or explication from your side on exactly what you consider dubious, that your comment is really misplaced and grosly disrespectfull.

Rudi, I empasized that is was a mere impression and I will refrain from making more comments before I have studied the evidence. I may have been totally wrong. Andries 22:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem is more about POV than it is about factual accuracy -- Rudy did manage eventually to back *one* statement he made (the one about Armenia) and I accepted it in the reworking of the article. The problem of the blatant POV however remains as Rudy readded it after Zoney's edit -- such statements like "Altough Turkey pretends being in favour of a secular state and respecting gender equality, thousands of state-paid imams still consacrate polygamous mariages" or "The recent 'recognition' of the Kurdish language by Turkish authorities appears to be a cosmetic operation"

So do you pretend taht Kurdish is now used more or less ion large scale in theeducatuion and public services in the Kurdish-speaking areas? if not, then my statements are perfectlu accurate: Kurdisch is still banned for 99%.

If those polygamous marriages aren't recognized by the state, I don't see what it has to do with the state's secularism. In fact it's a POV idea (even if one I tend to agree with) that polygamy (regardless whether recognized by the state or not) necessarily implies gender inequality. Likewise POV is the characterization of the recognition of Kurdish as "cosmetic". As judged by whom? Aris Katsaris 22:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As said already earlier, those mariages are consecrated by state-paid imams. For all pruposes, that represents at least implicit recognition. --Rudi Dierick 21:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use of Language

In the section about Turkey, it is written "bogus" without a "totally" in front. This is clearly bad form. GWC Autumn 55 2004 22.20 EST

--Rudi Dierick 21:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)== Appalling standard of the Turkey section hopefully improved ==

I hope the section on Turkey is now significantly better than it was. It was quite dreadful that the content remained in its current state for so long - but it was a nasty piece of work to tackle. I do suggest that the main body of the section will need moved to a sub-article, with only a short summary remaining, consisting of three/four short paragraphs on:

• History (as is)
• EU concerns (brief - mention areas but do not detail)
• Turkey progress (brief - general direction and general obstacles still)
• EU plans (brief - no unnecessary speculation)

This article here (Enlargement of the European Union) is not solely about Turkey.

zoney ♣ talk 22:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Would you like to do that moving, or do you prefer that I try?