Jump to content

Talk:Turkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Space772 (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 12 February 2024 (→‎Türkiye in the opening sentence: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleTurkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
August 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 27, 2017Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 20, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 8, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 29, 2005, October 29, 2011, October 29, 2012, October 29, 2013, October 29, 2014, October 29, 2015, October 29, 2016, and October 29, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article

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)[reply]

I agree. This usage became more common in official organizations. Beshogur (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In my opinion, Turkey or Turkiye should be written. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English letters must be used. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It already says Republic of Türkiye. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was born in Argentina but I am Turkish. 🇹🇷❤️🇦🇷 LionelCristiano (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English letters can include accent marks EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We do really want something better than a fourth multilateral institution. CMD (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think it is unrelated to MOS:LEADSENTENCE. CMD (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's a good question for WIAN, it clearly doesn't fit there. CMD (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What you did is not right. LionelCristiano (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Even if it is not important for u, it is an important change for me. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personalizing changes is not suitable for Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can live with you gaslighting your way out of that bizarre edit summary. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a list of independent sources using the name "Türkiye" from a quick superficial search:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No it should not. This had been discussed several times. Beshogur (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be discussed again. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed they are not. Pandering to the Turkish government's will is. Melitensis77 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not waste people's time here. This had been discussed dozens of times. Beshogur (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: which "Wikipedia guidelines"? Beshogur (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It changed it's official English name to Türkiye Space772 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti)". LionelCristiano (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This resource explains it all. 1 -LionelCristiano (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Republic of Türkiye” should be used in formal and diplomatic contexts. LionelCristiano (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I said it because it said so in the source. 31.155.67.147 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sir. 31.155.67.147 (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I am in favor of staying at 2.03% until new data is announced. LionelCristiano (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As a compromise, we could say “2.03 (as of 2015)” 71.239.86.150 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't wrong to provide the year. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Come on - no way could it be 1% or 3% or 0.3% Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Chidgk1 May I know why u are so insistent ? 46.104.62.156 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@31.155.67.147: @176.217.84.238: These IP addresses belonged to me :) LionelCristiano (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

i found some stuff that was inaccurate Aererae (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – bradv 01:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment

The Turkification of Anatolia as well as the region being called “Turkey(Turchia)” dates back to the early 11th century. Why does it start from 1299AD? I suggest that to be changed as 1046AD (Battle of Ganja) or 1071AD (Battle of Manzikert). 2001:14BB:695:D77:841B:DFEF:BDCA:7A2D (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Bazza 7 Can you do this ? LionelCristiano (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
Ok thanks. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1][2] 149.140.237.163 (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.[3][4] 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)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Britannica gets it right (though they identify the territory as the Armenian Highlands).[5] No reason for us not to. Largoplazo (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.[6] Therefore I believe we should use the ‘Caucasus’ or ‘South Caucasus’. 176.219.136.142 (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or ‘Southwest Caucasus’ to be more precise. 176.219.136.142 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wwf.org.tr/ne_yapiyoruz/doga_koruma/doal_alanlar/kafkasyaekolojikkoridoru/#:~:text=Doğu%20Karadeniz'in%20Karadeniz%20dağları,kısmını%20“dağ%20ormanları”%20oluşturuyor.
  2. ^ http://www.anl.az/down/meqale/azadliq/2013/oktyabr/329139.htm
  3. ^ https://www.silkroadcurrency.eu/states/kars/
  4. ^ https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/778578
  5. ^ "Turkey". Encyclopedia Britannica.
  6. ^ https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenian-Highland

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Absolutely I agree they are notable but many are both too precise and out of date Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=1206632818"