Talk:Turkey/Archive 40

Türkiye in the opening sentence
The article should mention the name "Türkiye" independently from the country's official name "Republic of Türkiye" in the opening sentence, which is the case with Ivory Coast and Cape Verde as other countries in a similar situation as Turkey. So, it should read Turkey or Türkiye, officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti]), is a country... or Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti]), also known as Türkiye, is a country.... There are plenty of sources in the English language that use the name "Türkiye" (to begin with, see the UN, IMF and World Bank country directories).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. This usage became more common in official organizations. Beshogur (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Potentially agree with this having personally seen it in travel ads, but it would be better to have sources that demonstrate normal English use as a name rather than 3 links which all simply reflect Turkish government statements. CMD (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t know what you mean exactly by “normal English use”, but there are news outlets and other websites that switched to Türkiye (see for instance this article on the OSCE website).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Turkey or Turkiye should be written. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * English letters must be used. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It already says Republic of Türkiye. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was born in Argentina but I am Turkish. 🇹🇷❤️🇦🇷 LionelCristiano (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * English letters can include accent marks  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that it should stay as it was before @Kiril Simeonovski's edit. Per @CMD's point, do we have sources that demonstrate it is widely used as a standalone name? Even then, do we have any specific guidelines telling that articles should follow this repetitive structure? Ideally, there should be a longer discussion on this, and Mr. Simeonovski should revert their edit per WP:BRD, because it was done 5 minutes after they started this thread on December 7, and even after this brief series of comments, I can't say there is a clear consensus. Not to mention that the initial edit overruled the comment in the sourcecode that explicitly states Do not change lead sentence to Türkiye per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. Aintabli (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We do really want something better than a fourth multilateral institution. CMD (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think international organizations that Turkey is a member of are great bellwethers of common use. They have no reason not to accept the wishes of their member countries and are not particularly motivated to use terms that are understandable by wide audiences. I haven't looked into news media or independent academic usage since the last big RfC, but I'm not sure enough evidence has been shown that we should move away from the stable, concise compromise "Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My edit didn’t overrule anything, as I didn’t change “Turkey” to “Türkiye”, but just added the latter after the former, which still presents “Turkey” as the primary name. Firefangledfeathers, if the sources above aren’t compelling because they’re from organisations that the country is a member of, then there are sources that the European Union uses the new name, which Turkey is most definitely not a member of (see this report). There are research papers by non-Turkish authors that use the name “Türkiye” (see this). There are even non-Turkish news outlets that use “Türkiye” (see this). I don’t say the article should be renamed because “Turkey” is still the primary name in the English language, but there’s sufficient amount of sources that “Türkiye” is also used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about membership per se, the sources you gave are all from formal multilateral institutions which are simply going to reflect the Turkish government as a matter of course. Anything published by the EU or the IMF falls into a similar category. I don't know much about the Middle East Monitor, but it appears to be closer to the sort of source that shows ordinary usage. CMD (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Middle East Monitor is a long way from ordinary English-language usage in the media. There's zero use of Türkiye in mainstream English language media. From personal experience I know there has been zero knowledge of the word amongst "ordinary" English-speakers. However, the first signs of that changing, I think, is people noticing it in Turkish-government tourism advertising. It will be interesting to see if that's the thing that changes usage in the end. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the safest way to go when you don't like something is move the goal posts. At first, the international organisations used to be the main problem, but now a research paper and a London-based not-for-profit organisation are also problematic. To add some context, there's a disclaimer on the page of the paper that says IMF Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management., which clearly states that the paper doesn't represent the views of the IMF. Do we have any guidelines that international organisations cannot be used as reliable sources? What makes a source more reliable than other? The only thing that we have is this list, which doesn't mention any of the sources provided here as unreliable. If "Türkiye" were used in mainstream English-language media, that would make a strong case to rename the article (as we did with virtually all Ukrainian cities). There are even practical reasons why "Türkiye" should be used in the opening sentence. As the infobox uses the IMF as a source for the GDP data, a reader willing to vet the source would end up getting "Türkiye" instead of "Turkey".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As a Turk, I support @Kiril Simeonovski it should remain Turkey or Türkiye. Do not revert the change. LionelCristiano (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No goal posts have been moved. Further, it's unclear why you are raising reliability and RS/P as they are not relevant to the question here. This is about assessing English language use, and trying to argue that an IMF-published paper demonstrates ordinary usage is not a productive avenue on that matter. CMD (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 "The word Türkiye represents and expresses the culture, civilisation, and values of the Turkish nation in the best way," Erdoğan said. How do u think about ? LionelCristiano (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is unrelated to MOS:LEADSENTENCE. CMD (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. However, common name policy may apply, regardless of international concerns. I know that Turks love their country very much and how powerful the Turkish nationalism is, as LionelCristiano said. Kys5 g talk! 04:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I provided reliable sources in the English language that clearly demonstrate the use of the name “Türkiye” as an alternative to "Turkey" (they don't make up majority, which is why "Turkey" should remain the primary name, but they most definitely exist). Sources reflecting Turkish government statements? This is a made-up criterion that goes even against our naming conventions. WP:WIAN lists the The World Factbook, which evidently uses both names in its country's directory, as an example of disinterested and authoritative reliable reference work.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Contrary to being made up, it's the exact spirit behind WP:COMMONNAME. The sources you listed were all from multilateral institutions and other official bodies that are going to simply adopt the official government name. If we can't find examples of usage that is not determined by a bureaucratic application of politically correct terminology, it is unlikely that the names reach the 10%ish usage point of potential inclusion in the article. CMD (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant here as it explains which name should be preferred as primary. If “Türkiye” were the common name, the article would need to be renamed, but it’s not the case. I’m wondering why WP:WIAN lists the The World Factbook as an example if it makes a “bureaucratic application of politically correct terminology”.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good question for WIAN, it clearly doesn't fit there. CMD (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My edit didn’t overrule anything, as I didn’t change “Turkey” to “Türkiye”, but just added the latter after the former, which still presents “Turkey” as the primary name. Firefangledfeathers, if the sources above aren’t compelling because they’re from organisations that the country is a member of, then there are sources that the European Union uses the new name, which Turkey is most definitely not a member of. There are research papers by non-Turkish authors that use the name “Türkiye”. I don’t say the article should be renamed because “Turkey” is still the primary name in the English language, but there’s sufficient amount of sources that “Türkiye” is also used. If you ask all Turks in the world, I am sure that everyone will support this view. LionelCristiano (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've revereted this. There's no consensus for it. It's also a pointless change - or already references it in the "official name". DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What you did is not right. LionelCristiano (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you ask all Turks in the world, I am sure that everyone will support this view. Ironic. Aintabli (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not important for u, it is an important change for me. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Personalizing changes is not suitable for Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you reverted this as an involved party in the discussion. You expressed your opinion that it should be removed, which is fine, but an involved editor isn't entitled to judge whether there's consensus or not. It should be done by an uninvolved editor per WP:CONSENSUS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at 12k edits you have such a basic misunderstanding. That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works - this isn't an RfC. You, on the other hand, should be following WP:BRD: restore your edit only once there is a consensus for it, which clealrly there isn't yet. DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry. I understand all that’s needed. WP:CONSENSUS doesn’t apply to RfCs only, but to all discussions that involve consensus-building. I’ve correctly followed it hundreds of times in ITN discussions in a time-span of more than twelve years. As for WP:BRD, I’d gladly apply it if any of you opposing the addition of “Türkiye” to the article pointed out to a clear guideline/rule to support your arguments. Instead, one editor incorrectly argued that my edit had violated the comment in the source code of changing “Turkey” to “Türkiye”, and another one misapplied and misinterpreted WP:COMMONNAME. Moreover, there’s the The World Factbook, which uses both names, as an example of an authoritative reference work for modern country names at WP:WIAN. But fair enough, I can live with it. It’s not the worst thing I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:CONSENSUS applies. But nowhere does it say that consensus has to be determined by an uninvolved editor. That's ridiculous. Almost all talk page discussions are concluded without an uninvolved editor determining consensus. If there's a dispute about consensus then one of the formal dispute resolution processes can be invoked and an uninvolved editor then may take up that role then. As far as supporting arguments why your edit is incorrect - that's set out below. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS states When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because editors uninvolved in the discussion can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves.. It’s as clear as day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I just said!! But no one has done that so that's why your edit summary here is just plain wrong. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * After making wrong claims about WP:CONSENSUS and eventually admitting they were wrong, now you’re digging yourself in a hole even deeper. My edit you’re referring to simply undid a revert made by you as an involved editor at time when you were trying to contest my original edit, which was accepted and uncontested for almost five days. Now that you want to revert it, you need to build consensus, which would be fleshed out and confirmed by an uninvolved party. But never mind, I didn’t bring your second revert back as I didn’t want to engage in edit-warring with you. It’d be totally unproductive and time-consuming.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can live with you gaslighting your way out of that bizarre edit summary. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Below is a list of independent sources using the name "Türkiye" from a quick superficial search:
 * Tech.eu:, , (earlier this year used "Turkey" as in , but then switched to "Türkiye")
 * AzerNews:, , ,
 * Xinhua:, , , ,

I can certainly found much more if I make a more thorough search, but these should be enough to prove that the name "Türkiye" is indeed used in the English language as an alternative name.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you find just one mainstream English-language media outlet (none of which the above are) that uses Türkiye? None of BBC, CNN, the American or Canadian TV networks and none of the major newspapers in the those countries do. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * DeCausa's source experience matches my own. I'll add that there's some guidance for us at WP:PLACE, which suggests that we include names "used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t know when did the mainstream English-language media outlets start to dictate the use of names in the English language. At the very least, they didn’t prevent the use of or weren’t taken into account at all when adding “Cabo Verde” and “Timor-Leste” to Cape Verde and East Timor, respectively, when it’s obvious that none of those media outlets have ever used any of the alternative names. Firefangledfeathers, it’s good to introduce more detailed guidance on this, but first we need to get rid of the double standards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC, The New York Times, CNN and The Guardian are major English-language WP:RS. Xinhua, AzerNews and Tech.eu (sorry the last two are so non-notable I can't even wikilink) are not. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s undeniably true that they’re mainstream English-language reliable sources, but they cannot simply annul the use by other reliable sources (or sources that aren’t blacklisted or deemed unreliable on Wikipedia). None of the less-known English-language sources presented earlier in this discussion are considered unreliable. If the official newspaper of the British Royal Navy uses the name, then nothing can deny that it’s really used in the English language. Either it’s used or not—it’s simple as that.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't say that mainstream English-language media don't use Timor Leste. They definitely do, although still quite below the threshold to justify a page move (see the last move discussion). –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @DeCausa, here are articles from the Australian Broadcasting Company and the Special Broadcasting Service of Australia indicating the switch to Turkiye
 * https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-18/king-approves-turkish-airways-expansion-after-qatar-rejection/103243376
 * https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-08/around-150-people-working-to-save-man-stuck-in-turkiye-cave/102834634
 * https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/passenger/passenger-turkiye/102544494
 * https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-16/turkiye-election-board-head-confirms-run-off-to-be-held-may-28/102349646
 * https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-28/turkiye-great-lakes-are-drying-up/102366986
 * https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australias-facebook-gangster-hakan-ayik-arrested-in-turkiye-after-decade-on-the-run/1ynsijjd2
 * https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/recep-tayyip-erdogan-facing-runoff-in-turkiyes-presidential-election/73ngwwgji
 * https://www.sbs.com.au/language/turkish/en/article/euro-visions-battling-it-out-in-turkiyes-elections/59xy8lzbn
 * https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/is-turkey-safe-to-travel-to-right-now-here-is-the-latest-advice-for-australians/0rivn575z
 * The ABC and SBS are the National Broadcasters of Australia.
 * This is from CNA, which is the national news broadcaster for Singapore
 * https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/turkiye-will-no-longer-send-imams-german-mosques-german-ministry-3989306
 * https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/turkiye-condemns-israel-jenin-raid-calls-accountability-3991211
 * https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/turkiyes-erdogan-rejects-us-pressure-cut-hamas-ties-3961421
 * https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/more-100-gaza-evacuees-patients-arrive-turkiye-israel-hamas-war-3933721
 * I don't think the article should be renamed since Turkey is obviously used way more often, but I think there is enough evidence that Turkiye is being used in the English speaking world as an accepted alternative based on my sources and the national broadcasters of two countries where English is the official language. 101.173.197.213 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, I had recently noticed ABC's policy (I don't think the other links are notable). It's an interesting development and even more interesting if they keep with the policy. Their position is explained here. They acknowledge that they are an outlier - will they persevere as a pioneer that others will join or will they return to the fold as a failed experiment? Time will tell. At the moment it's more of an exception that proves the rule. that ABC source might be something for your query on English-speakers pronunciation of Türkiye. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's hard to argue that the national broadcaster of Singapore isn't notable. Yeah it's probably not equivalent to the NYT, Guardian etc are but it's still the national english language broadcaster of 5 million people.
 * I will accept that the SBS is probably just following ABC's guidelines (even though they are technically separate).
 * I can accept the exception to the rule argument for now, but I think it will just be time until most of Australia follows it and then most of New Zealand too. 101.173.197.213 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa A valid counter to CNA's Turkiye's usage is that the Staits Times (newspaper of record for Singapore) still uses Turkey so it seems that even Singapore isn't fully converted yet: https://www.straitstimes.com/tags/turkey
 * So given a lack of abundance of usage outside Turkey by mainstream publications except the ABC/SBS, I am inclined to agree with the view that we should wait until some other mainstream papers adopt the spelling. 101.173.197.213 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to prepare for the case that we get consensus to add Türkiye as an alternative name: what's the English IPA transcription for this purportedly more than just perfunctorily used name? Even though we shouldn't base it on OR, I'm curious to hear what non-Turkish-speaking news readers currently produce when saying Türkiye in English-language broadcasts. I've tried to find something on YouTube, but with no success. –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it’s an endonym introduced in the English language, it should keep the original pronounciation and be .--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That would not work; endonyms, even if they keep their spelling the same and pronunciation as similar as is possible, generally do not retain the same phonological features in the target language.
 * I'm not discussing the change itself (which I don't have time to delve into), but @Austronesier raises a good point; do we have any established pronunciation of Türkiye in English that monolingual English speakers can actually produce?
 * Beyond [y] being problematic (although not impossible), I've never seen a monolingual English speaker (outside of the few English-speaking regions that use it, and even then) pronounce the Turkish [ɾ] in a 'standard' fashion. This is especially due to the rather unusual Turkish realization of this sound; oftentimes full contact is not made, leading to [ɾ̞̊]. Attempts by English speakers to create this sound usually yield [ɹ] (an approximant, which is dialect in Turkish as [ɹ̠], not as any of the common realizations in English) or [r] (a trill, which is even rarer). Uness232 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It will be an interesting exercise to see if anyone can find a video or audio clip of an English-language native speaker newsreader (ie.e not TRT World etc) using "Türkiye" as a matter of course in place of or even with "Turkey" in an English-language broadcast. Just a guess, but I think if Türkiye is ever adopted in English (a very big if) it will be adopted in print but not in the spoken language - rather like Paris v. Paree i.e. it will be pronounced "Turkey". DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * At least it should be written this way to be understood
 * Turkey, officially the Republic of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) LionelCristiano (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No it should not. This had been discussed several times. Beshogur (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Let it be discussed again. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah no. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beshogur Türkiye is not an English word, and this is the English version of Wikipedia. As simple as that. We say Federal Republic of Germany, not Federal Republic of Deutschland. Those few institutions and media that have switched (the word itself shows the artificiality of the use), have done so for political reasons, which should not influence the neutrality and objectivity of an encyclopedia. Melitensis77 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have thousands of articles whose titles are not English words let alone merely adding it in the lead sentence. Cabo San Lucas, Nara (city), Haleʻiwa, Hawaii, Champs-Élysées, Nunavut to name a few. Accent marks are not an issue.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed they are not. Pandering to the Turkish government's will is. Melitensis77 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not waste people's time here. This had been discussed dozens of times. Beshogur (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beshogur I'm afraid it is not just your opinion which can be voiced here, unacceptable and outrageous that your 'argument' is to shut people up. Melitensis77 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not my opinion. We discussed this hundreds of times and there was a consensus about. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason to refrain from adding this name. We describe phenomena, disputes, changes, etc. neutrally. Just as having Armenian genocide as an article title is not a defiance to the Turkish government, neither is including Türkiye pandering to the Turkish government.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @EvergreenFir Including 'Türkiye' in an English sentence, when there already is an English word, Turkey, is indeed pandering to the wishes of Erdogan. It is indeed bowing to that government. Other languages, if not all most, have simply ignored that absurd demand of the Turkish government to start calling it how they want, because they don't like the poultryesque name in English. So, indeed the debate is closed. Turkey is the only name in English for that country, anything else is pandering or worse. Melitensis77 (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Our job here is not to specifically oppose or contradict the wishes of any government, the same way that it is not to validate the wishes of any. If it is 'bowing' to a government to merely include information about its preferred official name, then 'bow' we shall. At least that's what the current consensus is; you would need to convince a lot more people for that to change. Uness232 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Uness232: The article does, indeed, include information about the current Turkish government's preferred official name in a foreign language: one third of Turkey is given over to this two-year-old idea, as much as is written on nearly one thousand years of history about the English name "Turkey", or "Turkeye" as Chaucer wrote it. Bazza (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I do not see how that is relevant to the lede. If there is a WP:DUE problem in that section, that can readily be resolved by summarizing, trimming, etc. Uness232 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "So, indeed the debate is closed" ... you do not get to unilaterally decide this, especially if your reason is that you don't like what you perceive as kowtowing to Erdogan.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we had a consensus on this. "Türkiye is not English!!!" is not an argument. All official organizations (UN/NATO/EU/FIFA/whatever) uses Türkiye. Thus "Republic of Turkey" is not the official name anymore. There was a user claiming something like "countries can not have official name". That's a bad reasoning as well. Countries indeed have an official name. Beshogur (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are the names that are used for those places in English discourse. "Türkiye" generally is not. Largoplazo (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Republic of Türkiye changed its official name from The Republic of Turkey on 26 May 2022 in a request submitted to the Secretary-General by the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs. "Republic of Turkey" is nowhere used anymore. I can't believe people still insisting this without checking previous discussions in archive. Another example is Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. "It's not English" is the worst argument I've heard. Please stop this nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: "Turkey, officially the Republic of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti)". This conforms best to with Wikipedia guidelines. Per above, these are the names that are used in English, "Türkiye" generally is not used.  // Timothy :: talk  22:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * which "Wikipedia guidelines"? Beshogur (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Id like to point out that back in 2022 the UN officially recognized turkeys official name change to Türkiye Space772 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It changed it's official English name to Türkiye Space772 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: "Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti)". LionelCristiano (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This resource explains it all. 1 -LionelCristiano (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * “Republic of Türkiye” should be used in formal and diplomatic contexts. LionelCristiano (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LionelCristiano It is curious how this nonsense is not being done in other important languages, such as Spanish, German, French, Italian... On their articles the official name is given fully in the respective language. No matter what a clique in the English Wikipedia (who I'm starting to doubt have English as their mother tongue) decide here, they do not get to decide what the English language should be, at this point I have to say obeying Erdogan. The United Nations is a joke that includes dictatorships that can influence decisions. So go right ahead, dear clique, and mess up the English version of Wikipedia. Melitensis77 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How can French speaking people call their country "Republic of Côte d'Ivoire" in English, how dare they(!) Beshogur (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was drawn here by seeing "Türkiye" on a travel ad, after battling with some over-enthusiastic Turkish patriots over some aviation articles. In the UK, the BBC still use "Turkey", as does gov.uk. The US Department of State at least has the courtesy to use "Turkey (Türkiye)", and according to the BBC the UN has adopted "Türkiye." We are clearly in a state of transition and Wikipedia will have to judge its moment to make its move. That will be governed by a consensus, probably here, to do so. That consensus has not yet emerged. Have patience, my Turkish colleagues, I am sure it will in due course. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How to improve the 4th paragraph of the lead?
I suspect we all agree that it could be improved - anyone disagree?

I have an idea but perhaps you would like to put yours first? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * OK then I will start: remove “ currently ranks 17th-largest in the world by nominal GDP and 11th-largest by PPP” as not very useful to the reader and that info is in the infobox anyway. If necessary we can say “middle income country” as that is shorter. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Turkey is a newly industrialized country, and a founding member of the OECD and G20; its economy currently ranks 17th-largest in the world by nominal GDP and 11th-largest by PPP. With a geopolitically significant location, Turkey is a regional power and an early member of NATO. Turkey joined the EU Customs Union in 1995, and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005; it is also Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, Organization of Islamic Cooperation OIC, TURKSOY, and Organization of Turkic States. Home to 21 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, Turkey is the fourth most visited country in the world.
 * There are small fix suggestions for now. I will add to it later. Youprayteas (t • c) 16:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be working on it this week or next week. Bogazicili (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you all think that culture deserves half a dozen words in the lead how about “Some Turks drink raki, others only ayran.” Chidgk1 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are being sarcastic I suppose. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was attempting both deep and amusing in that raki and ayran symbolise a certain polarisation of culture. Hopefully you or someone else has a better idea? Or perhaps you think culture is not important enough to mention in the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At the moment there is nothing in the lead on the environment. If allowed only 3 words I think “Precipitation is decreasing” or “Snowfall is decreasing” is the most important thing. But if allowed more words you can no doubt write about the environment more readably and with better flow connecting to the other text. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the lead should say a little about 21st century government and politics - do you agree? How about “Turkey is a flawed democracy with most power wielded by the president.” which is 12 words? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds nice Youprayteas (t • c) 12:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, too wordy and not neutral enough. "Turkey is a presidential republic" or "Officially, Turkey is a presidential republic" is enough. Then you can get into details in the subsection. Bogazicili (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bogazicili@Youprayteas and anyone - thoughts on my suggestion for the environment above? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think yes, culture should be mentioned, since the history is 50 percent of the lead. Kebab should definetly be mentioned too in my opinion as it symbolizes Turkey in some way (even though there are way better tasting Turkish foods in my opinion). I also think it should mention touristic sites such as Cappadocia and Pamukkale. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nooooo -please no kebab stereotype! Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you Turkish by the way? It seems your Userpage says you are a native English speaker but you seem to be knowledged about Turkey. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will reply on your user talk unless being Turkish or not is relevant to this discussion Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not, and yes, sorry, that would be more appropriate of me to bring it to talk page. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So we have over 250 words about history and prehistory but 12 words on politics and government is too many? I would like to hear other editors opinions on such a word imbalance Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Bogazicili (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So I went over the 3rd paragraph in the lead today. I know the word count didn't change much, but significant information was missing. I'll go over first two paragraphs tomorrow.
 * For the Government and politics section, these parts also count: With a geopolitically significant location, Turkey is a regional power[32] and an early member of NATO. Turkey joined the EU Customs Union in 1995, and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005; it is also a member of the Council of Europe, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, TURKSOY, and Organization of Turkic States.
 * I think we should just say "Turkey is a unitary presidential republic with a multi-party system". For “Precipitation is decreasing”, I was thinking of saying "highly vulnerable to climate chane"? Bogazicili (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right with the green text that geopolitics is covered somewhat although perhaps it would be useful for geopolitics to specifically mention “Russia” and “Middle East” and reduce European Union to one mention. I think ‘it is also ……’ should be removed as those organisations are less significant to Turkey than Russia and the Middle East.
 * Re govt the infobox already says “Unitary presidential constitutional republic” so your suggestion does not add much to that. However I looked at the lead of India as you mentioned it is featured, and it does not mention any flaws in their democracy.
 * I think everyone reading this discussion should take a look at the 4th para of India as it is rather good I think so we could steal some ideas from there. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Prod me if I don’t come up with anything about environment in next couple of days - I should look at India and ponder but I might forget Chidgk1 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How about "Russia supplies much of Turkey's energy" Chidgk1 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I'm finally done with first 3 paragraphs. It took a surprisingly long amount of time. The lead is currently 488 words, so we can maybe add something like 40 words to the last paragraph. We can also trim the large EU sentence. This is above Manual_of_Style/Lead_section recommendations, but I believe it should be fine. It's far below India. Bogazicili (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done with the lead. Currently has 545 words., "It is a unitary presidential republic with a multi-party system" is repeating the infobox a bit, but I checked several countries and they also have information repeating the infobox. I believe it's the most concise way to describe the government. , I didn't add kebap, but I did add something about the overall cuisine. Bogazicili (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2024
Change Turkey's HDI from 0,838 (2021 data) to 0,855 (2022 data). The link to the source is: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI Ardaite (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Lionel Cristiano? 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

University
Galatasaray University is one of the best universities in Turkey and Europe. It should definitely be mentioned in this article. But they delete it unnecessarily. Lionel Cristiano? 09:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, this university is a public university. Lionel Cristiano? 09:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please could you provide me a universal ranking that shows this university in the top 5 for Turkey. It is not even in the top 10 in any ranking. Istanbul University got 2 Nobel Prize winner alumni. You removed that one and added this instead? You need to clearly specify why this university is more significant than Istanbul University Metuboy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete anything, only you did. Lionel Cristiano? 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The page has way too many images already, the added value of that one is nil, and your claims about it were false (not the best in Turkey, not one of the best in Europe). I see no good reason to include this, it isn't an essential element of Turkey (it's not as if we hide the fact that the country has good universities). Fram (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 university pictures are not too many, they do not need to be deleted. Lionel Cristiano? 09:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on that. This isn't Education in Turkey. There are only three paragraphs here about education in the country, only two about universities. Why do we need three photos to illustrate summary material on the subject? For the sake of contrast, United States, Germany, and China have one university photo each. Largoplazo (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is to be deleted, another university should be deleted because Galatasaray University > all Lionel Cristiano? 10:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this hasn't anything to with you support Galatasaray football club. Beshogur (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2024
Why wouldn't you change the article's title to "Türkiye" since it has been approved by the UN? What's the deal? Is Wikipedia above international bodies and government decisions? Enlighten me I'm just curious to know. 194.206.18.62 (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "Türkiye" is not the country's name in the English language. To answer your questions, in order:
 * See the discussion above.
 * There is no deal. This is the English language Wikipedia. In English, the WP:COMMONNAME of the country is "Turkey".
 * Yes.
 * Bazza 7 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024
Change government titles in infobox to translations instead of names of analog offices in Anglophone countries, like in other country articles.
 * President -> President of the Republic
 * Vice President -> Vice President of the Republic
 * Assembly Speaker -> President of the Assembly
 * Chief Justice -> President of the Constitutional Court 31.223.50.18 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

name of the country
this country changed its name from Turkey to Türkiye, let's change the title of this wikipedia page 185.108.96.26 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * even google mapes has changed this country's name 185.108.96.26 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for our WP:COMMONNAME guideline, I'd agree with you. The country was known as Turkey for so long, and used in so many sources, that I doubt you would find a consensus to change anytime soon. See above where this just discussed in February 2024, where the consensus was to not move the article to the new name. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * maybe there is sth wrong with the guideline then. this country officially changes its name and popular online platforms use the new name. if a person changes their name, all official content about them changes too, no matter how common was the previous name, all common things come to an end one day قیام (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When the new name is commonly used, Wikipedia will follow suit. That is the COMMONNAME policy linked above. You could open an RfC on that page in an attempt to change that policy (I don't think it will succeed, but it's an option). But it is not a matter for this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Making that argument to me doesn't change anything here. We go by community guidelines, and only a community process will change it. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 19:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's Turkiye not Turkey
Why wikipedia is still lagging behind everything

When the name has been officially changed, wikipedia should adopt it because majority of people rely wikipedia for information, when wikipedia is still not updated how people will use the official name ? Common sense isn't it. Please look in to this matter 2409:40F2:127:80C9:A017:EEFF:FE16:A22D (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The common name in English is "Turkey", as the discussion above states. Bazza 7  (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The common name of Odessa isn't Odesa. The common name of Kiev isn't Kyiv. That doesn't stop Wikipedia does it now. 110.175.119.170 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This matter has been looked into 576 times so far (I'm exaggerating, but see all the previous discussions above and in this page's archives), so please review them and make yourself aware of Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME. The bottom line is that Wikipedia doesn't assume for itself the job of telling people what to call things, it gives the most weight to what people are calling them. Largoplazo (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This comes up all the time because only the United States still uses this term....... the vast majority of English countries have switched over years ago..... thus outside of the United States people see it as odd. Moxy 🍁 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Moxy: Really? I've only ever seen "Turkey" in my own variation of English, including from my state-owned broadcaster and (apart from messages about bilateral relations) government. Bazza 7  (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know which countries you're referring to? I'm thinking that "years ago" would imply at least two, and two years ago even the Turkish government weren't systematically using Türkiye.
 * The reason these things come up all the time is most likely because of people - not necessarily English-speakers - have heard about the name change and don't know our rules. It's no accident that so many of the requests come from IPs and that so many make no reference at all to WP:AT and instead try to argue for WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Kahastok talk 16:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I advise all users simply to revert those single purpose ips. We're discussing the same thing over and over. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't just revert them. "Single-purpose IP" is quite a smear here. Everyone has a right to make an observation about an article without having created an account and edited under it before. At least a fair edit summary is necessary, along the lines of "The subject has already been discussed, please see above." Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because they are single purpose IPs? Do you check the threads above, and many 100s (maybe) in archive? Beshogur (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not, because, despite. You shouldn't rudely remove what is a legitimate inquiry except for the fact that it's already been covered. The entire world is not aware that the name of this article has been discussed here many times, and the vast majority of people aren't seasoned Wikipedia users who, every time they start a thread on any talk page, check, or even know to check, whether it's an old topic. Are you under the impression that wiping out good-faith, on-topic contributions without a word of explanation is acceptable? Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beshogur: I'm intrigued by your term "single-purpose IP". Can you explain what it means, and how to get one? Bazza 7 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Reply: This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions, per WP:COMMONNAME the appropriate name is Turkey.
 * This should be closed as it has been discussed repeatedly before (I think with the same individual).  // Timothy :: talk  13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024
Turkey (country) should be changed to Turkiye. Country has changed its name to Turkiye and its officially accepted. As millions of people use Wikipedia, it should be corrected. Türkiye redirects to Turkey. It should be the other way. 50.67.153.3 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Bother to read the discussion immediately above. WP:COMMONNAME nearly always beats WP:OFFICIAL. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. CMD (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2024
Hello Wikipedia, I would like to make some corrections and additions to do with the 1912-1924 period of Turkish history which on this page, failed to mention the large change in the demographics, more specifically, the genocide of Kurds, Greek, Arminians and Arabs. All of which has seperate verified wikipedia pages that I would like to add a link to on this page. This is all I would like to change, simply a note with links to all of these verified pages. Corrector of propaganda (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Further, at least some of these demographic changes do seem to be quite clearly and explicitly mentioned. CMD (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia Anti-Turkish?
I mean what is your purpose by addressing the country as "Turkey"? It literally changed its name into "Turkiye" offically in English. Don't tell me that it is a frequent use in English. It doesn't make any sense. I know what is your aim by this title actually...

https://turkiye.un.org/en/184798-turkeys-name-changed-t%C3%BCrkiye#:~:text=Following%20an%20official%20letter%20submitted,to%20T%C3%BCrkiye%20at%20the%20UN. HaciMusto (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Establishment
Hi there maybe someone shares my impression that the infobox part about the establishment is a not complete short chronology.

It added a first point of Anatolian beyliks - after 1071 (Battle of Manzikert)

and added Rise of to the Ottoman Empire point

to give it clearer structure of formation/establishment and link to the respective articles.

I would have maybe also added calling the point War of Independence instead Occupation of Istanbul since it underlines in a concise way the (final) departure of Ottoman/Constantinople rule tp Ankaran rule.

Other points I think would be too much, though in my opinion as essantial: Conquest of Cosntantinople, but maybe even more so the Battle of Köse Dağ. But as I said the Anatolian beylils kind of summurized the latter and hinted towards the then allready starting replacement of the Bayzantine Romans to the Rûm etc. . Nsae Comp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * PS: maybe having a Conquest of Constantinople and an Occupation of Istanbul points give a simple chronological overview structure. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox is to much bloated and spammed if we add all these "established dates". Shadow4dark (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but e.g. the same part of the China article has also 8 points. But hey as a compromise how about having the Ottoman empire point link to the article of Rise of the Ottoman Empire and call it "Formation of the Ottoman Empire". Nsae Comp (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not meant to be a complete short chronology, it is meant to be a quick entry noting the date of establishment. CMD (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I agree "complete" is illusionary when you want to give a short introduction. But what I did mean is to have a structure of that section of the infobox that gives a clear idea of the establishment. So with other words: you can either start with the date of the formation of the Republic or mention the main root of the Ottoman Empire not just its formation, particularly because Turkey understands it self as state of the Turks and not the Ottomans, and what better way than by mentioning the beys as first point. PS: the argument about the Occupation of Instanbul is a second one to consider. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Anatolia was started to be called "Turchia" at the end of 12th century. So that's something we can consider. Bogazicili (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Too much history in the lead?
In the body of this article there is a history section and five other sections.

Yet half the lead is about history.

I think the lead should be rebalanced to be a quarter or at most a third history with more added from other sections. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at some of the FA class country articles. Both Germany and India have two paragraphs on history. In this article, some of the sentences might be trimmed, but there are also missing information. I think 2 paragraphs for history is appropriate though. And the last paragraph needs to be expanded to cover the rest of the article. So 4 paragraphs in total, and we would meet the recommended paragraph number in Manual_of_Style/Lead_section.
 * , I reverted your changes for now. If you search talk page archives, there seems to be an RFC that was done regarding some of the changes you made . Even though it is an old one (almost 7 years!), you might need a new RFC. If you decide to proceed with a RFC though, please wait a week or two, as there are lots of missing stuff in the lead, and I'll be working on them. Also I'm surprised you took out Göbeklitepe, it's a very important site and mentioned in Human history for example, a Vital_articles/Level/1 article. Bogazicili (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cannot we cut the prehistory and early history by linking to History of Anatolia perhaps via a hatnote? Otherwise that just leaves 2 paras for everything other than history and prehistory. The first paragraph is mostly geography with a brief mention of demographics and economics - are you happy with that paragraph?
 * I guess we all agree the fourth paragraph needs improving - so perhaps we should start a new discussion titled “4th paragraph”. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For example “After the prehistory and history of Anatolia, and history and fall of the Ottoman Empire ………………. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting we replace most of 2nd and 3rd paragraph with that sentence? If that's an outline, and not the actual suggestion, that's already the format in this article. 2 paragraphs for everything else should be enough. Excessive detail is given to EU-relations part for example:
 * "After becoming one of the early members of the Council of Europe in 1950, Turkey became an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995, and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005."
 * Again, the lead of India, which is FA, is much longer. Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you or someone else has already improved a bit about the EU. I have started a new discussion below about the 4th para so we can concentrate on history here. My sentence above is not an exact suggestion but to give an idea. I still don’t see why history is so important that it deserves half the lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If I calculated right even if we just cut down history from 50% of the lead to 40% that would still allow a dozen words for each of the following which are not mentioned at all but should be in my opinion:
 * current (21st century) national politics and government
 * environment (climate and biodiversity both have subsections in the body)
 * culture (well OK it does have one letter “C” in the lead) Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's half the lead, because other sections were not covered. So this discussion is premature, before the lead is expanded. Bogazicili (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just happened to notice that the Library of Congress country study at https://www.loc.gov/resource/frdcstdy.turkeycountrystu00metz_0/?sp=29&st=image&r=-0.836,-0.674,2.673,1.72,0 starts with the formation of the Republic so I don’t see why Wikipedia is different and has to go back further Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I had missed this. Maybe you are looking at a later page? If you look at contents, they included Ancient Anatolia including Hittites etc, Romans and Byzantines, and intro into Turkic people such as Great Seljuks. I hadn't seen this source but that is exactly the format we are using. It's also same in the sources I'm using (Howard, Douglas A. (2016). The History of Turkey (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood. ISBN 978-1-4408-3466-0) Bogazicili (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation format for books and long reports
Anyone minds using short inline citation format for books and long reports with and  templates? Recently, I seem to be the one adding most of these type of sources. Bogazicili (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also ones. Bogazicili (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the Ottoman Empire in the lede
I find that, as at 13 April 2024, there is excessive weight given to the Ottoman Empire in the lede section, and very little information on the the history of the current-day Republic of Turkey, which this article is about. In fact, the lede mentions nothing at all about contemporary Turkish history other than its founding in 1923.

Many of the sentences in the lede that deal with the Ottoman era can be trimmed or otherwise moved to the history section of the article, or even moved to the Ottoman Empire page itself. Actually most of it has already been mentioned at length in the history section. The lede should be short and concise per article guidelines and should never go into excessive detail.

I have trimmed these sentences accordingly and reinserted previous material that is more relevant to present-day Turkey. Feel free to discuss. Yekshemesh (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree and actually it's worse than that what you have said: the first history paragraph is mostly pre-Ottoman! The way the long history of Egypt is handled in its article seems a reasonable model: one long paragraph half of which is pre-mid(ish) 20th century with the other half a high level summary of many centuries. (And yes the Armenian Genocide should get a name check in the lead.) For Turkey, I suggest it should be half pre 1920 and half post. However, edit-warring wasn't the answer: after you were first reverted you should have stopped and waited to see if you had consensus support here. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response! I don't mind the paragraphs related to pre-Ottoman history as they still form part of the history of present-day Turkey - so long as they are kept short. I do take issue with the overemphasis on Ottoman history however. True, the legacy of the Ottoman Empire forms a big part of what Turkey is today, but a lot of the content there can be condensed further. Examples: 1) the persecution and mass migration of Muslims from Rumelia to Anatolia: this part can be trimmed or removed 2) The Second Constitutional Era: this definitely belongs to the Ottoman Empire page 3) the late Ottoman genocides: this can be condensed a bit further; it is already discussed at length in the history section of the page, along with the bit about mass expulsion of Muslims mentioned earlier 4) the Three Pashas don't belong in the lede; they're more relevant to Ottoman-related pages 5) NOTHING is written about Turkey's history post-1923. This is quite disappointing, since this article is about the Turkish Republic itself. This is the issue I most disagree with. Turkish history doesn't stop at 1923. I'm okay with your suggestion to have the lede split into two halves, first half for the pre-Republican era, and second half for Turkey's contemporary history. And thanks for your courteous reminder on edit warring. Maybe I got a little too carried away there. I'll be mindful of this next time. Opening the floor to other views on this. Yekshemesh (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This article is about Turkey. So this is the main article. I'd consider mentioning Göbekli Tepe more significant than "The economy was liberalized in the 1980s, leading to stronger economic growth and political stability" sentence for example. If genocides part is going to remain, persecution of Muslims part should stay too. Otherwise, there would be a bias in the lead. I also find it significant that Ottoman Empire was basically a dictatorship when it entered WW1, and was quite different than how it was for most part of its existence (the Three Pashas part). For this sentence "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but was involved in the Korean War and joined NATO in 1952", NATO is already mentioned in the last paragraph. You could mention "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but was involved in the Korean War" but is it really that significant? I also don't want 5 paragraphs in lead as there are length limitations in the lead (see: Manual_of_Style/Lead_section). Maybe something very concise can be added at the end of 3rd paragraph. Half pre 1920 and half post doesn't make sense to me given the length of history subsections. And first and 4th paragraphs could already be considered post 1920. Bogazicili (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this for the end of 3rd paragraph: "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II and started economic liberalization in the 1980s" Bogazicili (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(outdent) Regarding the genocides, there is a longstanding consensus via RfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey/Archive_27#RfC_Genocides), so that cannot be removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that the genocide mentions are to remain in place, but per Bogazicili it would be only fair to include a (short and concise) mention of the Muslim expulsions as well.
 * Korean War: this is a major Cold War conflict in which Turkey played a prominent role, and was its first significant involvement on the international stage (see Turkish Brigade). It should be included. If anything, I wouldn't even mention WWII in there, a war which Turkey sat out until February 1945 and was practically never involved in.
 * The coups d'état of 1960 and 1980 are significant events in post-1923 Turkish history, shaping Turkish politics in each of the following decades, and should be included.
 * A short bit on the development of the Turkish economy should also be mentioned.
 * In short: it's absurd that absolutely nothing is mentioned about contemporary Turkish history after 1923 in the lede. It's like making no mention of US history after the declaration of independence, or China after the Communist takeover in 1949. We need to remedy this. The article should focus on Turkey, not the Ottoman Empire or the eras preceding it.Yekshemesh (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added something short. Again, there are space limitations in the lead. We are already over recommended word counts. Bogazicili (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bogazicili. I've trimmed the sentences further. Yekshemesh (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * your changes were not helpful. There was not just "en masse" migration, but also approximately 5 million dead Turks, Circassian and other Muslims. Are we only supposed to mention loss of life of Christian people in the lead (the genocide sentence)? What kind of bias is that? Also "en masse" is unnecessarily complex wording, use simpler wording. And why remove "early" from "early 20th century" part? What are you trying to achieve here, just trying to add Korean war? Bogazicili (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to be belligerent, I'm actually on your side here. I added "ethnic cleansing", the definition of which includes the killing of ethnic groups (here referring to Muslim). If it were up to me I'd remove the genocide mentions in the lede altogether (both Muslim and non-Muslim) and put them in the Ottoman Empire page where they properly belong, but I acknowledge prior consensus on this.
 * Also, why the need to list out all the territories affected (Balkans, Crimea etc)? Is it absolutely necessary? Aren't these part of the Ottoman and Russian domains regardless? Why mention the Three Pashas, the Second Constitutional Era, the Ottoman coup of 1913? Don't you think these would be more relevant to Ottoman-related pages? Did these events have direct consequences on the modern Turkish state, which this article is about?
 * I would rather remove the bit about World War II (in which Turkey played virtually no active role at all), but I still left that in anyway.
 * The bottom line here is to be as concise as possible. These excessive details are cluttering up the lede unnecessarily. The part about migrations during the Ottoman contraction as well as the genocides against the Christian minorities is already mentioned in the history section below, for example. Lastly, your reversion also removed some grammatical corrections that I made. I hope you see my point. (ps. I left in "early" 20th century. My intention was to cut down on excessive words, but I understand that you might want the time period to be a bit more precise.) Yekshemesh (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did mass migration come from during Ottoman contraction? Arabian peninsula? North Africa? Levant? No. It came from Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. That needs to be spelled out. It was Crimean Tatars, various people from Caucasus such as Circassians and people from Balkans including Turks. Large-scale loss of life is a better description than ethnic cleansing, given what the sources are saying. There is no "ethnic cleansing" in any of the quotes in the source. You seem to be editing without reading the sources. That is very problematic. Please make your further suggestion in the talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The Caucasus and Crimea were part of the Russian Empire. If the names of these territories need to be spelt out, it can be done so in the history section. Nowhere did I mention North Africa, Arabia etc. These details are unnecessary for the lede, it's excessive clutter.
 * 2) Propose "massive" loss of life. More words need to be trimmed. Yekshemesh (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mass migration during Ottoman contraction can mean anything including North Africa, Arabia etc, since those were also part of the Ottoman Empire. Similarly Russian Empire is also big. Did Ottoman Empire receive mass migration from Moscow area?
 * Also millions of Turks today have partial Crimean Tatar or Circassian ancestry, or their families are Turks who migrated from Balkans, so yes it's very relevant to modern-day Turkey. "Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea" is also only 4 words. I'm surprised at your suggestions. If you just want to do an RfC about the genocide sentence, go ahead and do an RfC, instead of trying to make unnecessary cuts from rest of the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Every single word counts in a lede section that's already extremely cluttered, . Propose the following:
 * "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims in the former Ottoman Balkans, Russian Crimea, and the Caucasus led to massive loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey." (with relevant linking to articles) Yekshemesh (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These events happened AS Ottoman Empire retreated from Balkans and AS Russian Empire expanded into Crimea and Caucasus. Your suggested wording doesn't convey that. "former Ottoman Balkans" sounds like it happened after Ottomans left. "Russian Crimea" sounds extremely problematic.
 * The lead is also not extremely cluttered. Earth is an FA article. Its FAC was quite recent (2022) and its lead is 575 words. What are you proposing to be added into the lead? Korean war? Bogazicili (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not? Turkey's role was substantial in that war, and also contributed to it joining NATO. I'd rather put that in and remove the reference to WWII, which Turkey had almost nothing to do with.
 * I'm not looking to start a fight here on the parts regarding persecution of Muslims. I even thanked you on some of the prior edits you made. To be clear, again, I don't disagree with the sentiment, I just disagree with how it is worded. I'll leave the sentence as is for now, although I still think it is unnecessarily convoluted.
 * I'm removing the mentions about the Three Pashas, the Second Constitutional Era, and the 1913 coup, and moving the sentence about Turkish dizi to another part for better structure. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with adding the Korean war. That's why I'm asking. Is there anything else besides Korean war? And no, 3 Pashas should stay, I had already trimmed that sentence. Second Constitutional Era is already removed. Bogazicili (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And may I know what's your reason for including the 3 Pashas? The gist of the sentence is that the Ottoman Empire entered WWI; who was in charge back then is only of secondary importance (since, again, this article should focus on Turkey, not the nitty-gritty details of what happened during the Ottoman era).
 * Aside from the Korean War, how about we mention something about the liberalization of the economy in the 1980s, which has effects into the present day? I believe that had been inserted previously.
 * That's probably the extent of my additions. Otherwise the lede would be too clunky (as though it weren't already). Yekshemesh (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The gist of that sentence is "that the Ottoman Empire entered WWI", but it was under 3 pasha dictatorship. I don't think that's "nitty-gritty". The added word count is minimal. And this article does focus on Turkey. Turkey includes Ottoman past. You seem to make an artificial division. India's lead, an FA quality article, doesn't just "focus" on post-1947. Bogazicili (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added Korean war, liberalization of the economy in the 1980s means we might have to talk about inflation in the 90s etc, that's too detailed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Shorter sections will be merged
Per Peer review/Turkey/archive3, shorter sections will be merged. I'll also continue to trim as necessary to bring the article size down. Will merge Tourism into Economy, and will merge Roman and Byzantine sections. Merging Roman section to Byzantine section makes more sense to me than merging Roman section to Antiquity. Bogazicili (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Page should be moved to Türkiye
The country has changed its name, therefore it no longer makes sense to use the old one Rares Kosa (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, see the earlier discussions that have ended in a lack of consensus for a move and that present the reasons for this. Closing this discussion to avoid a full rehash that would be disruptive to watchers of this article.

Largoplazo (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Improvement
need improvment in first paragrafe about country Irani2024 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Specifically? Chidgk1 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ipsos Global Trends
This is not appropriate for the main article, as the sample is not nationally representative: "Online samples in Brazil, China, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey tend to be more urban, educated, and/or affluent than the general population". It can be added into a sub article with adequate explanation of its sampling. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

TOGG
The picture pertaineing to TOGG shows a T10X SUV not a T10S sedan. Furthermore T10S has since been changed to T10F, please correct. Mr.DetectiveMan (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of ancient sources
Use of 2000+ years old sources such as Metaphysics (Aristotle) or "See Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." is inappropriate in a high level article such as this. Ancient sources were often incorrect and incomplete: p.31 Bogazicili (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Citing only ancient sources to support a statement like "By the 1st century BC the Celts had become so Hellenized that some Greek writers called them Hellenogalatai" is obviously OR, or – as in this case – plagiarism from an uncited source: Strootman (2005), Kings against Celts: Deliverance From Barbarians as a Theme in Hellenistic Royal Propaganda. So this is easily mended by adding a citation to the actual source (and fix the close paraphrasing). So you don't need to engage in OR yourself to refute a statement from a scholarly source. –Austronesier (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the above was with respect to this edit . I don't think there's anything OR there. I haven't started going over the Rome section yet. And I didn't write this part, I just moved it to Rome section: "By the 1st century BC the Celts had become so Hellenized that some Greek writers called them Hellenogalatai" Bogazicili (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific; I meant the citation of "Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." –Austronesier (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again I have nothing to do with that citation either, I just moved that entire part to Rome section. I'll replace it with better sources when I'm going over the Rome section. I have this for the Celts Bogazicili (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Haven't you opened this very thread by calling a citation to "Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." inappropriate? For Wikipedians, to do so is indeed problematic per WP:PRIMARY; for secondary scholarly sources, this is of course highly appropriate and in fact obligatory for historians if they don't want work out of thin air. In this case, it does come from a secondary source; I have added the full citation in the meantime. My point is, a citation like "Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." should always raise copyvio alerts.
 * For the record, the plagiarized text was added here; either directly from the source without citation, which is really bad, or maybe copy-pasted from another WP article without attribution and scrutiny, which is also bad. –Austronesier (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Opened this thread so primary and ancient sources such as those are not used in the future. Of course it'd be fine in a secondary and modern source, at least with respect to WP:RS Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)