Talk:European Union–Turkey Customs Union

Accession and market access
This is more about the accession process in general than the Customs Union. It doesn't mention that, in agriculture, Turkey has far greater access to the EU market than EU producers have to the Turkish market: 70% of agricultural produce is tariff-free and fruit and vegetables are virtually tariff-free on the way out of Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.16.238 (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC) I Agree. Whole artice is written from a EU view. It should be marked as not neutral. --mko (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

duty free
could you please tell me what my duty free allowances are traveling from the turkey to the u.k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.245.206 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information
I agree that this entry appears to be on a different subject, Turkey's accession to the EU, and even there it is riddled with inaccuracies, out of date and misleading. The EU-Turkey customs union was not in any official way intended as a "first step" toward EU membership for Turkey, and the EU has not started the accession process with Turkey as the entry states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davique (talk • contribs) 13:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is strongly biased against the Customs Union. I am very suspicious of the figures listed. The fact that the Turkish GDP has more than doubled since the establishment might be worth mentioning. Comparing it to the Ottoman capitulations is ridiculous and more than a little offensive. Rob Morris 22 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.69.194 (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)   I cleaned it up a bit.
 * add refs or else do not add your claims-- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 09:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

strong bias
This article is strongly biased against the customs union. It's not an encyclopedia article but a debating article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.149.241.163 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Results for Turkey - highly dubious
Although the statements in this section may well be cited on a Turkish source, I have to question whether that source is a reliable one. The text of the Treaty contains nothing remotely to support the inferences it makes. For now, I have tagged them as "not in citatation given" but unless someone can come forward by the end of November with a credible reason to keep the section, I shall delete it. Xref also anon ed's comments earlier. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As there have been no comments on my proposal to delete this section, I have now done so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ping John Maynard Friedman.
 * The last paragraph of the section, which described the situation where EU FTA partners could access the Turkish market without having to give Turkey access to their own markets, was back up by three sources, which are Dutch, American and Turkish news websites (that are independent of each other). More sources, such as the European Institute and the House of Lords, also support this claim, so its verifiability is not really in question. The paragraph did not rely on the text of the treaty.
 * The second Turkish source (used earlier in the section), is the Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası (ZOM), the professional society of agricultural engineers in Turkey, comparable to the Agricultural Engineers Association in the UK; it is a member of the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects, the Turkish version of the Engineering Council. A search on Google Scholar shows that ZOM has been cited by reliable academic publications, so it should not be branded unreliable, unless you have specific concerns about its compliance with Identifying reliable sources.
 * The third Turkish source is an academic publication by Anadolu University, which is one of the most prominent universities in the country, and passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * More than half of the text in that section was backed by the above sources, and did not rely on synthesis from the text of the treaty. The bullet points and the preceding unreferenced sentence violated WP:SYNTH, but not the remainder of the section. I think that the text should not have been removed (except the synthesis). Are there still any good reasons to keep the text out of the article?
 * --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping Joshua Issac
 * Material that is properly sourced, of course should appear. Possibly I removed more than I should but certainly there was a big problem with text that relied on a source that made claims about the treaty that couldn't be supported by anything in the treaty, and then went on to infer outcomes based on these false premises. I have no doubt that the Customs Union has not been a red carpet for Turkey in terms of ease of access to the EEA markets but the point is better made when not undermined by wild assertions. So yes, please reinstate material that is properly supported by citations and doesn't wp:OR/wp:synth from them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have restored some of the text from the section. There are some paragraphs and sources I have not checked yet, so I have not restored text attributed to them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)