Talk:Turkey

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 EvergreenFir (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)

@Aintabli: 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. Kys5g ^talk! 04:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Aintabli: 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)

@DeCausa: 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#By soliciting outside opinions 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: [1], [2], [3] (earlier this year used "Turkey" as in [4], but then switched to "Türkiye")
• AzerNews: [5], [6], [7], [8]
• Xinhua: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

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#Alternative names, 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. @Austronesier: 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 /ˈtyɾcije/.--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. EvergreenFir (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. EvergreenFir (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#Name 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: 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.[14] "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)

  @TimothyBlue: 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)

Water percentage

Turkey's water percentage not 2% is 2.03% it is the same in other wikis, Pls update. 31.155.67.147 (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I changed it, not because of what other Wikipedias have but because it's what the cited source says. Largoplazo (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I said it because it said so in the source. 31.155.67.147 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks sir. 31.155.67.147 (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@31.155.67.147: @Largoplazo: I changed it back from 2.03% to 2% because although the OECD is a reliable source it is from a few years ago. Since then new dams have become operational, such as Yusufeli, and there has been drought. So I don’t believe it is possible now to say that 2.03% is correct to that many decimal places. Anyway the freshwater area will vary during the year and between years depending on precipitation. But obviously 2% is correct to that many decimal places. If you wish I will be happy to discuss this in more detail on the talk page of a more detailed article, for example Drought in Turkey See also Lake_Van#Recent_lake_level_change Chidgk1 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: The cited source is the cited source until someone comes up with a more recent figure in another source that can be cited in the current one's place. That's the whole point of citing sources. Everything you wrote above may be correct—but it's also original research. This is the article where the editing in question is occurring so this is the proper talk page for discussing it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of staying at 2.03% until new data is announced. LionelCristiano (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@LionelCristiano: Wikipedia:No original research states: “Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.”

Calculation follows:

Stating 2.03% implies a value between 2.025% and 2.035%

Difference between those values is 0.01%

Area of Turkey = 783,562 km2

0.01% of 783,562 km2 is about 78 km2

However since the OECD cite from a few years ago the area of Lake Van alone has shrunk by 100 km2 according to https://bianet.org/haber/recession-continues-in-turkey-s-largest-lake-283991

Please check my calculation for wrong assumptions or mistakes Chidgk1 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Turkey's water rate has not decreased, on the contrary it has increased. It should be written as at least %3.03 176.217.84.238 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@176.217.84.238: When I write 2% I mean at least 1.5% but less than 2.5%. I would be very surprised if you or anyone can give any evidence for even 2.5% Chidgk1 (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Chidgk1, what you are doing there goes beyond WP:CALC and is WP:SYNTH. You're assuming that the change to lake Van that you cite is the only relevant change that should be brought into the calculation. For CALC to apply, the source would have to say explicitly that since the OECD statement the total percentage has decreased by 0.03% - without stating what the original OECD number was. It should be as simple as that. DeCausa (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa We are not talking dollars and cents here. When I write 2% I mean at least 1.5% but less than 2.5%. I am not claiming the figure is 2.00% I think most readers would understand 2% like that. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, if a source gives a figure we should give that figure. No grounds for changing it. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

What you're doing is like visiting an article about a country that says its population is 12,305,417 as of 2017, citing a legitimate source, and you saying "I'm aware of 15 people who have been born since then so I'm going to change it to 12,305,432" without regard to the fact that (a) there are thousands of people who've been born since 2017 who you don't know about and (b) you forgot all about deaths and immigration/emigration. The 12,305,432 figure is a pure WP:SYNTH number that represents nothing in reality and doesn't belong here.

When a newer source appears that has a more up-to-date number (which will, implicitly, reflect all interim changes including the Lake Van situation), then we can use the number it provides and cite that source. Largoplazo (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I would not change an infobox population number in the way you describe. In that case I would change it to the appropriate precision such as “12.3 million” or “12 million” or even “12-13 million”. The infobox of a top-level country article is not the place for overly precise figures (User:Femke/crime against significant digits is a nice essay I think) Chidgk1 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You gave an argument that's exactly like my analogy. That's why I presented the analogy.

The infobox of a top-level country article is not the place for overly precise figures This seems an unfounded principle. I don't understand your motivation for arguing against the general proposition that when we take a number from a source, we give the number that's in the source, regardless of where in the article it is. And it's only three significant figures. How is that "overly precise"? Why reduce that to one? It doesn't arouse suspicion that it's a false degree of precision as it would if it were eight significant figures. Largoplazo (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As a compromise, we could say “2.03 (as of 2015)” 71.239.86.150 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It isn't wrong to provide the year. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

“2.03 (as of 2015)” takes longer to read than “2”. Many people just want a quick overview and don’t read the body of an article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Only problem: There is no up to date source of the water area, and search engine results are often copied from Wikipedia. So, both directly and indirectly, it could mislead people thinking that the number is up to date, even though it isn’t. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo Three significant figures is overly precise because, as explained above, Lake Van has shrunk by 100 km2. I don’t know what has happened to the other lakes, reservoirs and rivers since 2015. But we know that some lakes and reservoirs change area with the season. We also know that new dams have been built since 2015 - but I cannot believe @176.217.84.238: that we are now at 2.5% or more.

As explained at https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/754 “ ülkemizde tespit edilen 320 adet doğal göl bulunmaktadır. Bu göllerin bir kısmı mevsimsel nitelikte olup kış yağışları ile dolmakta olup yazın yağış olmamasından dolayı ise kurumaktadır.” which means “there are 320 natural lakes identified in our country. Some of these lakes are seasonal and are filled with winter precipitation and dry out due to lack of precipitation in summer”.

I cannot find any water surface area figure on the DSİ website. Which is a bit annoying since it seems unlikely many new reservoirs will be built from now on. So DSİ ought to give us an estimated area. But I am not a native speaker so perhaps I missed it on their website. Perhaps you or @176.217.84.238: can find a number?

So we cannot say 2.03% for sure. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/turkey-turkiye/#geography says 13,930 sq km divided by 783,562 which is 1.8%. But I would prefer 2% to be on the safe side as we don't know the methodology which was used to get 1.8%. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Accounting for changes since the source was published, it could be 1% or 3% or 0.3%. You don't know. So you don't know that 2% is any better than any of those. The source we're citing says 2.03%, so, as of then, that's our figure. As for your complaint that it takes too long to read, well, my heart bleeds. Think of everything you could be doing with that time instead. It would take even less time not to waste it reading trivia from Wikipedia Infoboxes or dickering over decimal places. Largoplazo (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Come on - no way could it be 1% or 3% or 0.3% Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The figure is 2.03%. That's what the source says that's what we show. There's no grounds for anything else. Unnecessary rounding or spurious arithmetic shouldn't mess around with that. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Chidgk1 May I know why u are so insistent ? 46.104.62.156 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess because I find it slightly irritating that false precision is so common here in Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@31.155.67.147: @176.217.84.238: These IP addresses belonged to me :) LionelCristiano (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 Turkey's water rate has increased considerably. At least 3.69% should be written. The dams are overflowing because it rains a lot. 1 2 -LionelCristiano (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@LionelCristiano: The dams are not 'overflowing', the numbers you show are slightly below average for winter months. In summer, these numbers would indicate a lot of rain, yes, but it is January and this time of year, the dams should be more than half full. Istanbul is still experiencing way too much warm and dry weather for winter (though that seems to be changing by tomorrow, and for some time), and the water supply is almost entirely 'surviving' off a couple of heavy November rainstorms. That is abnormal; Istanbul should not be rain-fed by a few heavy rainstorms, but by frequent light rain and drizzle.

Even if you were right, though, none of that would mean much as changing a number based on that would very clearly be WP:OR. Uness232 (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

False date establishment

The first Turkish state which ruled over this territory dates back to 1071AD what is the point of stating 1299AD? Besides that there are many other countries where even small principalities are mentioned in their establishment. We are talking about an Turkish empire which was founded in this area, ruled here and was internationally known as “Turchia”. The Seljuk sultanate of Rum was by all means the predeseccor of modern day Turkey. 178.247.19.166 (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

• Population
• Hi, can you update Turkey's 2023 population number ?
• 1 2023 population: 85,816,190

LionelCristiano (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Can you do this ? LionelCristiano (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done @LionelCristiano: The reference given is to a projection, not an current population figure, so I will not update the article with the information requested. Bazza (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Turkey in the South Caucasus

Geographically and ecologically, some Turkish provinces (Kars, Igdir, Ardahan etc.) are considered neither Anatolia nor Balkan but (South) Caucasus. So the second sentence must be updated as follows: It is mainly on the Anatolian Peninsula in West Asia, with small portions called East Thrace on the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe and on South Caucasus. 149.140.237.163 (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know about geography but I accept that WWF is a reliable source that ecologically a small part is in the Caucasus; however this is such a high level article that I don’t think such a detail should be in the second sentence. If you are interested in ecology it would be great if you could improve more detailed articles, such as Fauna of Turkey which needs more info in my opinion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I see your point on how high level this article is. However the region we are talking about covers similar area with East Thrace, which is mentioned on top of the page. Additionally there was even a Turkish government founded on those lands (including some territories of present-day Georgia) named Provisional National Government of the Southwestern Caucasus. The region was incorporated to South Caucasus also in Russian era (Kars oblast, Surmalu uezd). There are also present-day cultural and academic examples including but not limited to a university founded in Kars (Kafkas University, which literally translates to ‘Caucasus University’). Given all those examples (but not limited to them) and the way Turkey/Turkiye being a culturally rich country, I believe it’s worth mentioning that fact on the page.

P.S. thanks for recommending Fauna of Turkey, I’ll check on that. 149.140.212.101 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica gets it right (though they identify the territory as the Armenian Highlands). No reason for us not to. Largoplazo (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the area called ‘Armenian Highlands’ is not exactly same area with the Turkish Caucasus, it also covers some southern and/or Anatolian provinces but excludes some located in the Caucasus. Therefore I believe we should use the ‘Caucasus’ or ‘South Caucasus’. 176.219.136.142 (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Or ‘Southwest Caucasus’ to be more precise. 176.219.136.142 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

For info - anyone can edit Geography of Turkey which does not currently mention the Caucasus - you don’t need to log in Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't say that. There's no part of the South Caucasus - actually the Lesser Caucasus - that isn't in both Turkey and the Armenian Highlands but there are parts of Turkey that's in the Armenian Highlands but isn't in the South Caucasus. If there were to be a reference to any area it would to the Armenian Highlands not the South Caucusus, the Turkish part of which is tiny. As discussed in the Anatolia article, there's two definitions of "Anatolia": a traditional geographic one which excludes the Armenian Highlands and the modern Turkish-government defined area which includes it and is co-terminous with Asian Turkey. There's enough "debate" about that without also throwing in the red herring of the tiny Turkish portion of the South Caucasus. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe there’s something wrong in your understanding of what the earlier comment says. It doesn’t say that whole Turkey is in the Caucasus; it says it has its sovereign territories within Southwest Caucasus region; just as East Thrace.

And how come you compare “Lesser Caucasus” and “Southwest Caucasus”? The first one is a mountain range in the Caucasus Region while the latter points to the southwestern part of (which lies within boundaries of present day Georgia and Turkey; following Turkish provinces are wholly in the Southwest Caucasus: Igdir, Kars, Ardahan. There is also another province named Erzurum, which is partially in Southwest Caucasus) that region.

I also checked out the Anatolia talk section, it appears they have taken that politically apart from geography and named Turkish part in Balkans as “Europe”; and the rest as “Anatolia” or Asia.

In the meantime, I noted that they also have mentioned about ‘Mesopotamia’ besides Armenian Highlands. I think both names are very historical and not related to the present day; the areas called Mesopotamia and Armenian Highlands are encompassing several present-day countries’ territories.

I believe this kind of namings makes sense when that’s name of a continent (e.g. Europe) or sub-region within a continent where the culture is identical with several countries (e.g. the Balkans) but it’s not the case for the areas once called ‘Mesopotamia’ or ‘Armenian Highlands’; the latter also not co-terminous with Anatolia, there are some territories which are historically called Armenian Highlands but now Anatolia.

Unlike the two, “Caucasus” is still a contemporary name like as the Balkans or Thrace.

However it’s up to consensus here to make change or keep it as is. Thanks for this discussion, geography can be a very interesting topic sometimes. 176.55.141.18 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that instead of struggling to shoehorn the country precisely into a set of geographical regions the designations of which are often overlapping and largely arbitrary, it will suffice to write that it "... is a country mainly in West Asia, including the entire Anatolian Peninsula, with a smaller region known as East Thrace on the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe". Completely undebatable, sufficiently informative for the lead, and completely avoids dragging the reader into nitpicky details that will be almost entirely opaque to them about the differences among the Armenian Highlands or the Caucasus or the southwestern, western, southern, north-by-northeastern, etc., corners of these and exactly which bits of land each of these occupies. We're trying to tell readers concisely where Turkey is, not impress them with the depths of our knowledge of arcane geographic taxonomy. Largoplazo (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, "South Caucasus" is an irrelevance - the IP is very confused on that, including in there last post above. There is a point around "geographical" Anatolia being the western three-quarters of "political" Anatolia (nothing to do with South Caucasus) but I agree sticking to Asian Turkey = Anatolia is the simplest solution and readers can click through to the Anatolia article for more information on that. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

References

I think some detail should be summarised and/or moved to more detailed articles

@Bogazicili just put back in that 43.8% of 2019 electricity was generated from renewables. However Renewable energy in Turkey is a good article so I cannot see why we need that detail here.

That is not the only example of excessive detail - there is also:

an estimated strength of 890,700 military personnel as of February 2022

A 2015 poll found that 27% of the Turkish public was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and 19% supported civil unions instead

Turkey covers an area of 783,562 square kilometres (302,535 square miles), of which 755,688 square kilometres (291,773 square miles) is in Asia and 23,764 square kilometres (9,175 square miles) is in Europe.

The most commonly found species of the genus Platanus (plane) is the orientalis.

According to the World Bank, the middle class population in Turkey rose from 18% to 41% of the total population between 1993 and 2010.

As of March 2023, the foreign currency reserves of the Turkish Central Bank were $62.6 billion (a 2.3% increase compared to the previous month), its gold reserves were $52.2 billion (a 7.2% increase compared to the previous month), while its official reserve assets stood at $122.4 billion (a 4.3% increase compared to the previous month).

The motorway network spans 3,633 kilometres (2,257 mi) as of 2023, with an expected expansion to 9,312 kilometres (5,786 miles) by 2035

A 2016 survey by Ipsos, interviewing 17,180 adults across 22 countries, found that Islam was the dominant religion in Turkey, adhered to by 82% of the total population; religiously unaffiliated people comprised 13% of the population, while 2% were Christians.

Turkey has become a hub for foreign students in recent years, with 795,962 foreign students in 2016.

Around 60% of the income has been obtained from plastic surgery and a total of 662,087 patients received service in the country within the scope of health tourism in 2019

Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not see renewable energy percentage as an excessive detail. It's also mentioned in articles of many countries, such as United Kingdom. It's also mentioned FA quality country articles such as Germany. I also do not see most of what you have put as excessive detail, especially things that do not vary such as land size. Rise in middle class, foreign students etc also seem notable. Religious and demographic info are also notable (also found in FA article Germany). Bogazicili (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely I agree they are notable but many are both too precise and out of date Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to update them in the future, I think a lot of Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey-related articles are in a poor shape. Bogazicili (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are right - perhaps a lot of editors dropped out during the blocking a few years ago and never returned - just guessing. In order to make this article easier to keep up to date perhaps some of the statements can be made more general. For example rather than mentioning a particular year some of them could maybe include: “In the early 2020s …” or “… the motorway and high-speed train networks were greatly extended” or “Inflation was over 50% a year from 20xx to 20yy” and suchlike. I mean without mentioning exact numbers for particular years which will get out of date quickly Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2024

Turkey → Türkiye – The country of Türkiye has officially changed their name to Türkiye. It is no longer Turkey. It makes no sense to keep the name or the article as Turkey, as a redirect from Turkey to Türkiye can be added, or placed onto a disambiguation page. The text of the article refers to Turkey as Türkiye, so the article should be moved to have Türkiye as its name. Antny08 (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: see prior discussions in January 2022, January 2022 again, June 2022, September 2022, November 2022, and February 2023. There was a moratorium on move discussions from December 2022 to December 2023. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The most relevant part of the article title policy is WP:NAMECHANGE. Since it's official name change, reliable English language sources mostly continue to use "Turkey". I checked news sources, academic sources, and books. The examples are too numerous to name. I am confident I can cite two reliable English-language sources mainly using "Turkey" for every one cited that uses "Turkïye". I encourage everyone to review the prior discussions and consider whether the counterarguments raised there can be overcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because the request names no relevant reasons why it should be moved. That it's the official name, as been pointed out numerous times in numerous previous discussions, while it may seem a reasonable factor, is not what determines the name of Wikipedia articles on countries, it's WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE. That the text of the article refers to Turkey as Türkiye is simply a false statement. Largoplazo (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per preceding rationale. Archives908 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Admin note - the proposer attempted to remove this discussion; I have restored it. If you wish to withdraw the request please say so, but do not just remove it; there is an automated process triggered by properly closing the discussion. It is also not appropriate to remove discussions where other users have commented. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, did not know about that. I will keep the discussion open until a decision is reached. Antny08 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support and move Turkey (disambiguation) here, no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, we use WP:COMMONNAME, not official name and there is no argument made that Turkey is not currently the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Kahastok talk 19:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not the common name for the country in standard spoken English. That the country has requested that it be called such-and-such within the framework of international organizations is not pertinent to the former determination. See Talk:Czech Republic for an analogous example. KFan3 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose and Reimpose the moratorium until 2026 - Basically per WP:COMMONAME. The idea has sprung up that the governments of non-English-speaking countries can, for nationalistic reasons, control what placenames English-speaking-people use, typically whilst never adopting the preferred place-names of other countries in return. At least on Wikipedia, this is not the case - we use the name used by the majority of reliable sources writing in English which is still overwhelmingly "Turkey" according to Ngrams. Arguments based on official names are not given much weight on Wikipedia, since we do not tend to use official names where other names are much more commonly used per WP:OFFICIALNAME. The present name is far more recognisable to English speaking people as it is easily read phonetically, does not have an umlaut in it. It is also more concise as it is one character shorter. The argument that people might be confused with the Turkey bird is addressed by the fact that this is one of the first ambiguous names that one learns as an English-speaking child. Finally there is consistency with other countries where we also use the English name unless there is a good reason not to.
  To avoid further such pointless discussions, we should bring back the moratorium, and keep it in place for longer - until 2026 seems a decent amount of time to see whether any change at all happens. FOARP (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above, support re-imposing any moratorium, as is just a classic WP:OFFICIALNAMES argument, the relevant policy to follow is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, to find what is most used in sources, which this proposal neither argues nor backs up, and instead uses the discouraged argument "but government says so". DankJae 22:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose COMMONNAME, as others have said. Reimpose moratorium until 2026 as this is just disruptive when the outcome is so obvious. DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - @Firefangledfeathers, Largoplazo, Archives908, Ivanvector, Antny08, Crouch, Swale, Kahastok, and KFan3: - what's you view on reimposing the moratorium? FOARP (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not on account of this request, unless it takes on a new life following this response of mine. My sense is that the outcome would still, at this point, be Not Moved, but if someone were to initiate a move request now with a relevant rationale I think that would be fine. If that fails, then I'd be in favor of a two-year moratorium, but I don't think we should effectively extend the one that has already expired post hoc. Largoplazo (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I support it, since it seems the community is currently strongly against changing the name, but maybe in the future that might change. Antny08 (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so, there seems a reasonable prospect there will be consensus in the future and more importantly there haven't been that many move requests recently. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like there were several attempts to change the name in the last few months, so I wouldn't say a moratorium shouldn't be an option. The real problem you get in these kinds of discussions is the sort of evidence-free WP:OFFICIALNAME argument as above. Given that the talk page is not totally dominated by move requests, I'm not sure we want to be in a place where a single no-hoper request is allowed every year - but then blocks all other requests for the rest of the year. Kahastok talk 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• I agree because there is room for confusion with animals. However, if the English-speaking world uses a lot of Turkiye, there will be no great disagreement even if the title of the current document is maintained. Mamiamauwy (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, proposed change is not the common name for the country in English. Restore moratorium.  // Timothy :: talk  02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Benefits:

1. No more mixup with Turkey (bird).

2. Countries should be referred with their legal name. Youprayteas (t • c) 11:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to change Wikipedia's guidelines to base titles on "legal" names, start a discussion to change that at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. At this time, the guidelines say that we don't go by legal names. Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The official name of the country in its own language might be Türkiye but the common name in English is still Turkey. This is the same for other languages, for example the Finnish article is still at fi:Turkki instead of fi:Türkiye. There is ambiguity in the Finnish name as well, as the Finnish word turkki means "fur" but that doesn't seem to be a problem for the Finnish Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 11:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  The namechange to Türkiye was only in English, not in Finnish or any other language. Youprayteas (t • c) 11:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Right. Which only highlights just how weird Erdogan is being about this, and why very few are following the Turkish diktat on this. FOARP (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Because in English, Turkey is a bird. This is not the case for other lingos. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  As I just said, in Finnish, "Turkki" means the country of Turkey while "turkki" means fur, so this argument isn't exactly valid. But maybe Erdoğan does not understand Finnish. JIP | Talk 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  The silly thing about the bird argument is that if the country had been known all along in English as "Türkiye", then the bird, which was named after the country, would today be called "türkiye". If that bothered Turks so terribly, can you imagine them demanding that English rename the bird? By the way, the Turkish word for "turkey" is "hindi", yes, as in "Hindi". They call India "Hindistan", but do you hear India whining that Turkey is calling India the equivalent of "turkeystan"? Oh! And Turks call corn "mısır". "Mısır" is also their name for Egypt. Do you think Egyptians cry about that? Largoplazo (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  English is a global language, Turkish is not. Youprayteas (t • c) 05:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Relevance? "English is a global language, therefore Erdoğan owns English and can tell English Wikipedia what it has to call Turkey but he doesn't have to show the same consideration to other languages because Turkish is so very, very private"? This is tenuous reasoning. Largoplazo (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  If Mısır comes tomorrow and say you should call it Mısr, Turkish government has to respect it. However, if Egyptian MFA uses Mısır, no one can say anything. That's where you fail to understand what official name means. Beshogur (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Who's talking about what governments, motivated purely by diplomatic considerations, call other countries? We're talking about what media and people and Wikipedia, unburdened by diplomatic considerations, call countries. Largoplazo (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Even ignoring that you've switched the subject to what governments call other countries, which is beside the point, let's go one step further and imagine that Egypt officially decreed that written media in all languages should begin referring to it as "مصر". Not as "Misr". Not as "Mısır". Not as "Egypt" or "Égypte" or "Egipto" or "Египет" or "埃及" or "이집트". But as "مصر". Just as Turkey wants English writers to write the name of their country, when in all-caps, as "TÜRKİYE", including two letters that we don't have in English. As if the speakers of those languages are supposed to know what to make of these foreign glyphs.

  This has gotten really off of my primary subject which is why it's so dumb for Erdoğan to be whining in the first place. about "Turkey" also being the name of a bird. It's absurd and pathetic, for the reasons I gave. Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'll take you serious if you wrote the same thing for Ivory Coast as well. Beshogur (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's dumb for Ivory Coast to whine that other languages use their own words for its name which is, after all, just two ordinary words in a particular (non-native!) language that have translations in other languages. It's absurd and pathetic. I don't know why you thought I wouldn't think or write that. (I'll take you seriously if you stick to your word and take me seriously now. If you don't, I won't.) Largoplazo (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's actually not correct. It was intended to apply pretty much across the board, at least to Latin-script languages. There's also some evidence that it's intended that the i be a Turkish dotted i rather than a conventional Latin i (e.g. REPUBLIQUE DE TÜRKİYE). Given that they literally banned the letters Q, W and X until well into this century, the Turkish government really wasn't shy about trying to force their letters into other languages' orthographies. Kahastok talk 18:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I agree with you to some extent. Türkiye is ridiculous, Turkiye is an appropreiate namechange though. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I checked the list of member states for the UN. The new version is used for the three official languages that use the Roman alphabet: English, French and Spanish. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Kahastok - Of course, Turkish officialdom totally doesn't use the official names of other countries and prefers Turkish-language versions when writing in Turkish (e.g., "Londra" rather than London, "Birleşik Krallık" rather than UK). Because they're not consistent about this at all. FOARP (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Côte d'Ivoire is appropriate but Türkiye isn't? Come on. Beshogur (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Our article is at Ivory Coast, so I'm not clear on the relevance of this. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's not my point tho, if you read again. Beshogur (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've read it five times and still don't get the relevance. Largoplazo (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ivory Coast, officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire Côte d'Ivoire isn't English. So do you have the same opinions on this? Your only argument is "Türkiye is not English", etc. Beshogur (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC is about the article name. The article name of that country is Ivory Coast. What are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: maybe if you read my comments, I never defend moving Turkey to Türkiye, while you are claiming since the beginning that Republic of Türkiye is wrong because Türkiye isn't English. Isn't that the whole point of the discussion? Beshogur (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree that we use COMMONNAME, not legal name. If the proposal were accepted, then we would, for sake of consistency, have to change the names of articles for many other countries to their legal names in their native languages: Deutschland, Polska, Bhārat, Nippon-koku, Brasil, Zhōngguó, and Suomi, just to name a few. Articles in an encyclopedia written in English should use the common English names for the country. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  The legal name for Germany in English is Germany as an example. Or Poland's official name in English is Poland. Turkey's official name in English is Türkiye. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is no "legal name for Germany in English" because *DRUM ROLL* Germany isn't under the crazy impression that it gets to legislate what people in other countries call it. English isn't an official language in Germany/Poland/etc. so why would they legislate on these things that are ultimately none of their business?

  All of which is besides the point because even if English were an official language in Turkey (it isn't) we don't automatically use official names. We use the common name, which in this case is Turkey. FOARP (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have some comments. This had been discussed several times. Countries have "official English names" otherwise, we would not put x country, officially the x of x. This is how diplomacy work. There is no "Republic of Ivory Coast" because it's English, there is Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, as there is Republic of Türkiye. Recognized by the United Nations. For example, Wales uses the name Cymru, which is recognized by FIFA. Maybe they might change country's name in future as well. However this move is about the title, thus speedy close Beshogur (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually "official" is such a bogus concept. What does it mean? No one knows. Is it determined by the constitution? By statute? by presidential circular (as in this case)? by administrative usage? Actually it's all irrelevant. The King of England was "officially" the King of france for 500 years... except he wasn't. "Côte d'Ivoire" is here becuase it's used in English language media. "Türkiye" isn't. The whole line of argument is a giant red Meleagris. DeCausa (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  This king of England thing isn't a good comparison, thus not worthwhile for a reply. You know exactly what I mean, since you write the same things over and over for 2 years, still not getting my point. Beshogur (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is a fair point though. Whenever we use the word "officially", in this kind of discussion, we invite the question according to who? It is perfectly possible for there to be different official names for a place depending on which authority you take your lead from. The fact that Türkiye is the word used in English by the Turkish government doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, because the Turkish government doesn't have the authority to tell English-speakers how to speak their language. Kahastok talk 11:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  So UN/FIFA/whatever organization doesn't have authority either? So what's the point of putting "officially" on starting sentence of country articles here. Beshogur (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  The double standard is fun. Ukraine has the right to tell everyone should call Kiev, Kyiv suddenly, but Turkish government can't? Just because there is the letter ü? So if it was without dots "Turkiye", it was fine? Or Swaziland -> Estawtini? Who calls Swaziland Eswatini? Eswatini isn't "English" either. There is an excellent example of Côte d'Ivoire, yet you guys telling the same thing over and over. Beshogur (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why on earth would the world football association have the authority to tell English speakers how to speak their language?

• Wikipedia changed from Kiev to Kyiv in 2020, a full 28 years after the Ukrainian government announced the change in its usage. So, Ukraine was most definitely not given the right to dictate usage to English-speakers. Who calls Swaziland Eswatini? Well, chances are a lot of people don't call it anything because they don't know it exists. In Wikipedia terms, given that it is an English-speaking country, we have WP:ENGVAR to consider. And Ivory Coast? Well, we call it Ivory Coast for a reason. They too, are not given the right to dictate usage to English speakers. Kahastok talk 12:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  As if Kiev -> Kyiv wasn't a reaction to Russian invasion, rather than random spelling change. Kyiv is literally Ukrainian pronunciation of Kiev, and everyone is ok with that.

  Why on earth would the world football association have the authority to tell English speakers how to speak their language?

  This is just one example. Other organizations, NATO/EU/etc, not just sports accepted that, yet some users here can't accept that just because the Turkish government told so? I got a Turkish ID card that uses "Republic of Türkiye", which makes it official use. English or not, there is an excellent example like Côte d'Ivoire. And see my comment below please. Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  According to our article Kyiv, the Ukrainian government adopted Kyiv as its preferred spelling in English in October 1995. Funnily enough, I don't remember there having been a Russian invasion of Ukraine in 1995? And 1995 Russian invasion of Ukraine is strangely a redlink? Could you perhaps provide some evidence that the change in 1995 was caused by some hitherto unknown Russian invasion?

• You can point at countless formal documents calling George II of Great Britain King of France. According to the UK government of the era, he was the official King of France. Didn't mean anyone in France took any notice.

• The Turkish government is not the final arbiter of what is and what is not officially English. Otherwise we'd have long ago had to find a new way of spelling words like "welcome", "question" and "fix", all of which were illegal in Turkey until 2013. Kahastok talk 14:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  What does the 200 years old King of England has something to do with this. Nothing.

  And Ukraine can adopt other spelling in English, Turkey can not? You contradict yourself here. Beshogur (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I never said that Turkey isn't allowed to have a preferred spelling of a word, just as Ukraine did. But neither Turkey nor Ukraine has any right to demand that English speakers adopt their preferred name or accept it as "official".

  And FTR I do see a clear parallel between the claim that Türkiye is the official English-language name of the country (solely based on the Turkish government saying it is) and the claim that George II was officially King of France (solely based on the British government having said he was). Kahastok talk 14:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  What makes it official, is official institutions using it. Every country has an official name, and "Republic of Türkiye" is officially recognized by the UN and all other organizations (NATO/EU/whatever you want). That's my point. Beshogur (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  The claim that every country has an official name that everyone agrees to is a vast oversimplification. For instance, why does Turkey refer to the "Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus" where others refer to the "Republic of Cyprus", if that country has only one official name that everyone agrees to?

  The word "official" in this context is little more than a peacock term, because the "official name" depends on which official you choose to listen to. Different officials can (and often do) disagree. Many languages have regulators to resolve these differences. English normally relies on usage. Kahastok talk 15:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh that's because Turkey doesn't diplomatically recognize Cyprus. "Republic of Cyprus" is definitely the official name. It's "Cypriot Republic" in Greek language for example. Hope you get my point. Beshogur (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  So you'll be able to point out Turkish government sources referring to Cyprus - in a modern context, under its current government - using what you claim is its universally-acknowledged official name Republic of Cyprus? After all, if the Turkish government don't accept it, it can't be universally acknowledged. I'll look forward to seeing them. Kahastok talk 16:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Because Cyprus is member of the UN? Does that answer your question? Beshogur (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• On what basis are you claiming that the United Nations has the right to dictate usage on the English-speaking population of the world? Bearing in mind that the UN itself does not claim any such authority? Kahastok talk 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• So who's the authority here? You're talking like you're the authority to decide whether a word is English or not? English terms with diacritical marks exists. If that's what you want to hear. Beshogur (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• How about the Turkish Parliament whose "official" (now what does that mean?) translation of the Constitution still seems to translate Article I as "The State of Turkey is a Republic".[15] DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• This is outdated. [16] current version by GNAT: ARTICLE 1- The State of Türkiye is a Republic.. as well as Constitutional Court (you linked) uses Türkiye. Beshogur (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Well, well. So the parliament's version is less "official" than the Constitutional Court's version. It's almost like "official" doesn't really mean anything. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Kyiv is literally Ukrainian pronunciation of Kiev, and everyone is ok with that." Actually, no, they're not. This change was just as ridiculous as the one Erdogan is asking for. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• The official translation published by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Department of Laws and Resolutions, May 2019. Yeah sure. You talk like Constitutional Court wrote this, yet it's an old official translation by the GNAT. Beshogur (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  But Wikipedia is not calling Ivory Coast "Côte d'Ivoire", it's calling it Ivory Coast despite the country's absurd demand that it should be called "Côte d'Ivoire" in every language everywhere. Even the Finnish article fi:Norsunluurannikko says that the country's demand is usually ignored outside the country. (By the way, "Norsunluurannikko" literally means "elephant bone coast". Finnish lacks a specific word for "ivory".) So why should Turkey be any different? Most countries don't have crazy ideas they get to dictate what other countries should call them in their own language. JIP | Talk 13:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Kahastok: @JIP: can you simply get my point. I'm not defending Turkey -> Türkiye move, I am saying there is an example like Ivory Coast, officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire and you're repeating same thing over and over. These are rather based on ethnic/geographic places, while UK/Montenegro/etc. isn't. But this is name implementation made by the Ivorian government, and everyone has to respect that. Since then every official institution is the name Côte d'Ivoire. So, expect the same thing for Türkiye, in which Türkiye is already in use by official institution and it's registered by the ISO. Regarding United Kingdom isn't called the United Kingdom in Turkish, or Montenegro isn't Montenegro for sure, same goes for Ivory Coast. These are not great examples. These names can be translated, while Italy/Russia/England/etc can not. Beshogur (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  There's no double standard because Ukraine and Eswatini also have no right to dictate what names will be used on Wikipedia. If you were to look at the discussions that led to those changes you'd see that neither was changed on the grounds of what the respective countries wanted. Largoplazo (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  As if wikipedia is a deciding organ by itself. People make these consensus. Similarly "Republic of Türkiye" change was made by another consensus. I am not even defending Turkey->Türkiye move, but if people here divert the discussion towards the lead containing Republic of Türkiye, it's double standard, since nobody even talks about Republic of Côte d'Ivoire thing. Beshogur (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. ChessEric 01:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - It is clear that the article cannot be moved, at least Turkey or Türkiye, officially the Republic of Türkiye should be written. Lionel Cristiano^? 13:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because of Wikipedia:Article titles and the English translation is Turkey, while the Turkish name is Türkitye. For example, the title of Germany is Germany, not Deutschland for example. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As per WP:COMMONNAME.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the name of the country isn't English. –LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 10:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The country is still commonly known as Turkey in the English language, not "Turkey-yeah". I would support reinstating the moratorium. Aintabli (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and support restoring the moratorium for at least one year. –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE, support restoring moratorium for a minimum of one year. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

Should change the name to Türkiye. United Nations has recognised the new name for the country in English. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states/turkiye Catalinb2005 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I just suggested that. Please refer to my discussion, Requested move 15 February 2024

However, the concensus, while I disagree with it, seems to say that no, the article name will not be changed. Antny08 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the move discussion directly above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 15 February 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 Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length.

Youprayteas, 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 [17]. 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 Wikipedia: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)

the starting sentence

can somebody please correct the sentence as; 'Turkey is a transcontinental country mainly on on the Anatolian Peninsula in West Asia, with a smaller part called East Thrace on the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe.'

i believe it is a really important adjective since there are not too many countries can claim this attribute officially... 46.196.85.12 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Questions and comments:

1. In what way does not having the word in that sentence cause it not to be "correct"?
2. It is not important to show off our ability to use an obscure term that, as it happens, adds nothing to what is already communicated by our naming the two continents over which the country is spread. We're here to inform, clearly, not to impress or overwhelm or overcomplicate with ten-dollar words.
3. Not only that, but the idea that "transcontinental" even means having land in multiple continents is wrong! Comparable to other words that begin with "trans-", it describes something that crosses one continent, like a transcontinental railway or the Transcontinental Pipeline. It can also be used to describe something as being on the other side of a continent from something else. Of the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the American Heritage Dictionary, none has a definition for the term other than these. The only transcontinental countries in the world are the United States, Canada, Australia, and (because it crosses all of Asia, not because it has portions in both Asia and Europe) Russia. The use of the term to describe any country other than these is what's incorrect. Largoplazo (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

OECD

When I looked at the OECD website, there was this warning. This platform has reached the end of its life and will be switched-off end of March 2024. So what do we do now ? Lionel Cristiano^? 05:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Help @Largoplazo -Lionel Cristiano^? 05:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#Water percentage We can update this to 3.69% Lionel Cristiano^? 05:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Um ... why me in particular? Largoplazo (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Try https://data.oecd.org/turkiye.htm Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this better for the first sentence?

"Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti] ), is a transcontinental country with land both in the Anatolian Peninsula in West Asia, and in East Thrace on the Balkan Peninsula, in Europe." Is this better than the current one or worse? Youprayteas (t • c) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. It already says it's on both continents, so "transcontinental" is an unnecessary word. And Anatolia is the much bigger part, is there gonna be another sentence for that after this too? We have space limitations in the lead, see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't this sentence shorter than the one up now? And okay, change it to "...country with land mostly in the Anatolian Peninsula, and a smaller piece of land, East Thrace, on the..." Youprayteas (t • c) 18:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

So you want to remove West Asia? Why? Bogazicili (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti] ^ⓘ), is a transcontinental country with land mostly in the Anatolian Peninsula, in West Asia, and smaller piece of land, East Thrace, on the Balkan Peninsula, in Europe." This better? Also, I was thinking of just Anatolia instead of Anatolian Peninsula as Turkey has land outisde the historical actual peninsula of Anatolia, the first meaning of Anatolia as discussed in Talk: Anatolia; while just plain Anatolia is more accurate, in my opinion, for Asian Turkey. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Another thing: "...with a smaller part called East Thrace on the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe." or "...with a smaller part, East Thrace, on the Balkan Peninsula in Europe."? The latter seems better for me but I don't know. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• I removed the RfC tag. RfCs are for dispute resolution after thorough local discussion. We're still very much in the workshopping and local discussion phase here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Regarding "transcontinental", to reiterate what I said less than a day ago above,
  1. If "transcontinental" even meant what you're using it here to mean, it would still add nothing to what is already communicated by our naming the two continents over which the country is spread. Do we mean to impress the reader by our knowledge of ten-dollar words? It isn't as though having land in more than one continent is an important characteristic that merits being highlighted in that manner. It's of no consequence at all, at any level, let alone lead-worthy consequence. It has no implications for the country, it has no impact on the country, nor on the world. It's purely a figment of an artificial human-contrived division of the world into masses called "continents", and it's no more than a matter of trivial interest.
  2. But let's get to the reall issue: the idea that "transcontinental" even means having land in multiple continents is wrong! Comparable to other words that begin with "trans-", it describes something that crosses one continent, like a transcontinental railway or the Transcontinental Pipeline. It can also be used to describe something as being on the other side of a continent from something else. Of the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the American Heritage Dictionary, none has a definition for the term other than these. The only transcontinental countries in the world are the United States, Canada, Australia, and (because it crosses all of Asia, not because it has portions in both Asia and Europe) Russia. The use of the term to describe any country other than these is what's incorrect. I even suspect that that use of the word is Wikipedia-generated cruft. Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  "It isn't as though having land in more than one continent is an important characteristic that merits being highlighted in that manner. It's of no consequence at all, at any level," This is especially true if the continents in question are Europe and Asia, as the division into those entities is thoroughly arbitrary. You might as well declare that the Labrador Peninsula is a continent. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:57, 21 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)

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)

References

Requesting title to be changed to Türkiye

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting title to be changed to Türkiye Teinhaoren (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A formal discussion about whether to do that is already going on above. Largoplazo (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.