Talk:Turkey

The default name in English is still "Turkey"

Closed due to FAQ in the header of this talk page about the name Turkey.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Turkish government's official state media gave two reasons why the government now uses the name "Türkiye" instead of "Turkey" in English, both of which are based on the fact that it is spelled in English like the bird (🦃) and neither of which is permitted as a reason for changing terminology on Wikipedia: to affect the Google results that people get and to avoid an association with the "not flattering" colloquial meaning of "turkey." Both are actually reasonable goals from the point of view of a government, but Wikipedia obviously cannot join in a campaign (by a company, a government, or any other group) whose stated purposes are 1) to change the Google search results that people see & 2) to avoid embarrassment. Also: not only is this article called "Turkey," but when I began this topic I got a notice, to anybody planning to request the article's name to be changed, that it will remain "Turkey" for at least the next year. Which makes sense, because although names do sometimes change over time in English (Beijing was "Peking" 50 years ago) as of 2023 the default spelling is still overwhelmingly "Turkey." ) t UrielAcosta (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Oh come on. We talked this like for months with tens of users. Did you discover this today? Beshogur (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC) FYI. Beshogur (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) There is also, by the way, a hidden note (visible in the edit space, where anybody changing the text can see it) saying "DO NOT change to Türkiye. The subject of Turkey's name rebrand is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on Wikipedia supporting the use of Türkiye in English text." Please do not change the English again until such a convenience had been achieved. UrielAcosta (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) That's actually about the page title, not the official name. See also Ivory Coast which has non English name. Beshogur (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) But google does default to Türkiye and uses that spelling in all its apps. The US department of state refers to the country as Turkey (Türkiye). 2603:7080:B2F0:8B30:60F0:927:2DDA:DAA6 (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Restored Talk:Turkey/Archive 36#RfC on the official name of the country in the lede (2)Moxy- 22:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggested ways to shorten

I see a tag on there that says the article may be too long. Then it says to contribute to the discussion on the length. There is no discussion of the length. I read what it says about the moratorium. As far as I can make out, this discussion does not come under the moratorium. Yes, of course the article is way too long. For some reason Turkey is a very emotional topic and everyone wants to pitch in. Turkey seems to be at the center of some hot issues. But, here is how we can cut down. First of all, in the history of the west Turkey is a new country. It arises on territory that was formerly other countries. Each of those other countries has multiple articles. And yet, we try to treat those topics under Turkey. I suggest we begin Turkey with the arrival of the Turks. Good Lord, we can't put all those topics under here, it would take up half of Wikipedia. Secondly, I notice a lot of topics are highly specialized aspects of Turkish culture. Can't these be moved to their own articles? Well, I hope I have not stepped on the moratorium. I hope that, while we are waiting to work on the article, you will take up THIS discussion and arrive at some consenuses.Botteville (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The sub-articles already exist, it's a matter of shifting detail there and writing in WP:Summary style here. This is a very common problem, not a Turkey-specific one (although the 26kB history section is somewhat egregious). CMD (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would be great if you (or anyone else) could move some details to existing sub-articles Chidgk1 (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Name section is extremely long. I will shorten it soon. 148.78.116.4 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@148.78.116.4: Do you or anyone else have time to condense the name section? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

The nanme of this counrty is called Turkiye and not turkey 62.72.122.130 (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is true, The name of the Country has been changed and already written officially Turkiye. So the caption of this article should be "Turkiye" 91.93.229.148 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Name change

A moratorium is a moratorium

Yes, another one of these. I will list my arguments in simple and concise points. And yes, I realise there is a moratorium. Please feel free to read now but I kindly do not expect any actions or decisions to be made until after 1 December 2023 regarding this. 1. The current policy has changed from what many called "common name (WP:COMMONNAME)," which was "Naming conventions" to the current "Article titles" (Wikipedia:Article titles). See here: Wikipedia:Official names 2. In Wikipedia:Article titles, if you scroll to "Places" and "Specific topics", Turkey/Türkiye is not mentioned. This means Wikipedia does not have a specific policy surrounding this country, while it does for others. 3. With the news of UEFA Euro 2032 being held in Italy and Türkiye, it is getting harder to defend the justification of using its previous name. UEFA, a huge organisation is using the "Türkiye" spelling in all its media and promotional content. CGTN, one of the biggest news channels in the world is using the updated spelling too. It is ridiculous that we are getting to the point where we are showing promotional images with the new spelling on Wikipedia pages but still using the old spelling in the article, it is unnecessarily confusing. 4. Türkiye is shown in britannica.com and dictionary.com as an alternative spelling. It is missing in Cambridge dictionary but they show "Côte d'Ivoire" as an alternative spelling, so there could be some bias or hypocrisy there. 5. In Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) it states clearly at the top of the page "occasional exceptions" may apply, this is treated to every guideline within the page. Here are some less strong arguments but still important: 6. If and when India does change its name to "Bharat" in the same way Türkiye did, I am 100% certain Wikipedia will use its new name eventually if Indian people are bothered by it and make a big fuss. The same thing would happen with China. 7. People who undergo a sex change operation or simply identify as the opposite sex and get a new name almost always have their pages updated even if it is not their most common or widely known name yet. You could argue it is becaused news and media use their updated name, but that does not reflect the number of actual people using it and not to mention they have political reasons to avoid any kind of backlash. The same things happen with most organisations or companies. 8. Lastly, we should update the name for respect for national identity, accuracy and inclusivity, international standards and encouraging global cultural awareness. Holy Sepulchre (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This article name discussion has very different considerations to those involved with WP:BLPs, that is not a comparison that will help the discussion move forward. CMD (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Then disregard point 7, what about the rest? Someone advocating for its current spelling cannot possibly make a better, more compelling or numerous arguments beyond simply "this is protocol." Holy Sepulchre (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Reputable English-language sources still haven't switched over to Türkiye. You mention the Euro 2032 announcement as an example, but the BBC, CNN, ESPN and pretty much every English-language source I can find used "Turkey" in their stories on the announcement. Even the other host nation for Euro 2032 used "Turkey" in their announcement (FIGC.it). How about Reuters? Or Al Jazeera? The Associated Press? Le Monde? – PeeJay 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This addresses the second half of point 3, nothing more. The fact most news organisations still use the old spelling is completely expected but does not reflect the rest of the world. Naturally, they are less likely to use its new spelling because of strict guidelines and recognisability. But the BBC for example has made numerous posts and videos on its new spelling, so they address it there. Their guidelines demand they not call terrorists as terrorists either, they use the term militants for all of them regardless of how recognised they are internationally as terrorists. So, should we now remove any assertion on Wikipedia which classifies Hamas as terrorists just because the BBC calls them militants? You are completely ignoring the fact exceptions can apply and most of the points I made. You have one very basic argument around one guideline and I just gave eight. Why do you think yours is stronger or matters more? Holy Sepulchre (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

The page source has the template Use American English, but the page notice says to use British English. Should it be changed? Super yoshi013021 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Pending – I've submitted an edit request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Turkey. Tollens (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The talk page header still says "This article is written in British English", and is in the category Wikipedia articles that use British English. ThunderMite42 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for the catch – fixed now. Tollens (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Top 5 articles with titles that some perceive as dated

A moratorium on this topic is currently in place
I'm sure that this article and Twitter are currently 2 of them, but can you name all the top 5?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) We still use Czech Republic doktorb wordsdeeds 04:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Turkish president's website says that Turkey has a coat of arms

Why isn't the coat of arms being displayed on this page? It says on the Turkish president's website, https://cbddo.gov.tr/kurumsal-kimlik/, that this symbol, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_the_Presidency_of_Turkey.svg, is the coat of arms of the President and the country of Turkey. It says:

"Arma / Güvenlik Alanı : Arma, Cumhurbașkanlığı’nın ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin amblemi niteliğindedir."

which translates to :

"Coat of Arms / Security Area: The coat of arms is the emblem of the Presidency and the Republic of Turkey."

So why isn't this being displayed here? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if that makes a difference but the Turkish text says "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin" and not "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin" or just "Türkiye". Also, besides this website, all other sources say that this coat of arms is only the Presidential Seal of Turkey. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed this. [1] as far I can see this was added after May 2020. I searched and couldn't find any other mention anywhere. English version doesn't mention this either. Beshogur (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

June 09th was when the document here was stamped: https://www.tccb.gov.tr/assets/dosya/resmisimgeler/arma.pdf Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Also relevant is this excerpt from the parent website of that link, https://www.tccb.gov.tr/cumhurbaskanligi/resmi-simgeler/fors/:

"Halen yürürlükte olan 25.01.1985 günlü, 85/9034 sayılı Türk Bayrağı Tüzüğü’nün 28. maddesi ile bu maddenin gönderme yaptığı ilgili örneğine göre bugünkü fors kullanılmaktadır. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Forsu’ndaki güneşin Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ni, 16 yıldızın ise bağımsız Türk Devletlerini temsil ettiği görüşünü ilk kez, 1969 yılında, Harita Yb. Akîp Özbek Türkiye Cumhurbaşkanlığı Forsu ve Taşıdığı Anlam isimli kitabında ortaya koymuştur. Bu görüş izleyen yıllarda kabul görmüştür."

translated as:

"According to Article 28 of the Turkish Flag Regulation No. 85/9034, dated 25.01.1985, which is still in force, and the relevant example referred to by this article, today's force is used. The view that the sun on the Presidential Seal represents the Republic of Turkey and the 16 stars represent the independent Turkish States was first introduced in 1969 by the Map Yb. Akîp Özbek put it forward in his book titled "Turkish Presidential Emblem and Its Meaning". This view was accepted in the following years." Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This means the middle start represents Turkey. Also the decree doesn't mention the emblem of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The decree was for the flag, the book gave the symbol its current meaning. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you need decree for a flag? The decree talks about where to use the presidential emblem. Beshogur (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The decree is to ensure the flags are created in the correct way, the measurements and materials and whatnot. Maybe take a look at the source first and you'll see why the presidential emblem is relevant. It's the big giant image that the entire source is talking about. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I know. Perhaps leave it to the people who know what they are talking about then? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This presidential website [2] has a similar message: "Presidential Logo is the visual symbol of the Presidency and the Republic of Türkiye." Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh sure because the president represents the republic. Beshogur (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean the presidential logo, not the president, as is stated there in plain English. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there one reliable secondary source that says that the Presidential Seal of Turkey is also the coat of arms of the Republic of Turkey? I couldn't find one (I think that https://cbddo.gov.tr/kurumsal-kimlik/ is a weak source). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I found this excerpt from Ataturk University's Turkic Studies Journal[3] talking about how the coat of arms was created by Ataturk himself and continues on in the form of the Presidential seal:

"Bugün Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin kullandığı, Türkiye Cumhur Başkanlığı bayrağını (kırmızı zemin üzerinde bitmez tükenmez Türklük kaynağını ifade eden güneş etrafında dizilen; şimdiye kadar Türk tarihinde kurulmuş olan on altı büyük Türk devletini-imparatorluğunu sembolize eden her biri, birer parlayan ve etrafını aydınlatan yücelerde yıldızlarla ifade edilen bayrak) bizzat M. Kemal Atatürk düzenleyerek, Türklük ülküsü ve tarih şuuru konularında ne denli bilgili ve duyarlı olduğunu, sanatsal olgulara dikkat ettiğini bir kez daha gösterecektir.75 Bu konuda yani Cumhuriyet Türkiye’sinin resmî devlet arması her ne kadar tartışmalı bir konu olsa da hatıra ve belgeler ışığında O’nun zamanında bu konular üzerinde ciddi şekilde kafa yorulduğu ve mesai harcandığıdır.76 Bütün kuvvetini milletinin inandığı mümtaz değerlerden alan, zaman geçtikçe şahsı ve eserleri hakkında son ve kat’i hüküm hiçbir vakit verilemeyecek olan Türk kültür ve medeniyetine ömrü borunca hizmet eden77 M. Kemal Atatürk, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin kurucusu olarak “ ay-yıldızlı al-bayrağı” aynen devam ettirmekle Türk milletinin ve Türk devletinin kültür ve medeniyet değerlerinin sürekliliğini ölümsüzleştirmiştir. Zira öteden beri Türk tarihinde ortaya çıkan çeşitli Türk devlet ve toplulukları sık sık bayrak ve sancaklar konusunda ciddi birtakım yapısal değişimlere giderken O, tarihî perspektifte yüzlerce yıldır Türk milletinin kullandığı bayrağı ve sancağı asla değiştirmemiştir. Cumhuriyet Türkiye’sinin birçok kurum ve kuruluşunun amblem/arması, (Türkiyat Enstitüsü, Türk Tarih Kurumu vb.) bizzat Atatürk’ünde katkılarıyla tasarlanmıştır. Gerçektende Türklük ruhu ve bilinci ile dolu olan M. Kemal Atatürk, öteden beri Türk tarihinde kullanılan hem kutsal renkleri hem de millî sembolleri tanıyıp bildiğini açıkça bu tür çalışmalarıyla kanıtlamıştır"

translated as:

"Presidency of Turkey, used today by the Republic of Turkey flag (the sun symbolizing the inexhaustible source of Turkishness on a red background). lined up around; sixteen major Turkish cities established so far in Turkish history. Each symbol symbolizing its state-empire is a shining and illuminating environment. The flag expressed with stars on high) was organized by M. Kemal Atatürk himself, how knowledgeable and sensitive he is about his ideals and historical consciousness, and his artistic facts. will show once again that he pays attention.75 In this regard, that is, the Republic of Turkey's Although the official state coat of arms is a controversial issue, in the light of memories and documents In his time, serious thought was given to these issues and 76 It is the time spent, which derives all its strength from the distinguished values in which its nation believes. M. Kemal Atatürk, Turkey, who served the Turkish culture and civilization throughout his life, about whose personality and works the final and definitive judgment will never be made as time goes by. As the founder of the Republic of Turkey, By continuing the same "Take the flag with the crescent and star" The continuity of the cultural and civilizational values of the Turkish nation and the Turkish state immortalized it. Because various Turkish states and states that have emerged in Turkish history for a long time. communities often undergo serious structural changes regarding flags and banners. On his way, he saw the flag that the Turkish nation had used for hundreds of years in historical perspective and He never changed the flag. Many institutions and organizations of the Republic of Turkey The emblem/coat of arms (Turkish Studies Institute, Turkish Historical Society, etc.) was made by Ataturk himself. Designed with contributions. M. Kemal, who is truly full of Turkish spirit and consciousness Atatürk used both the sacred colors and the national symbols that have long been used in Turkish history. He clearly proved that he knew the symbols with such works." Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither clear nor convincing. It says that it's a controversial issue.

The Turkish Wikipedia gives more information on the topic: tr:Türkiye arması: 2014 yılının Ağustos ayında ise iktidarda bulunan Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi'nin Şanlıurfa Milletvekili Zeynep Karahan Uslu, resmî olarak yeni bir armanın tasarlanması için 30 Milletvekiliyle birlikte "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti Resmî Armasının Belirlenmesi Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı"nı partisinin Grup Başkanlığı'na sunmuştur.

Another RS: https://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/turkiye-cumhuriyetinin-resmi-armasi-belirlenecek-162094.html

Türkiye'nin bir devlet armasının bulunmamasının önemli bir eksiklik olduğuna işaret eden Uslu, köklü bir tarihsel ve kültürel geçmişe sahip devletin arması olması gerektiğini belirtti. [...] Devlet armasının oluşturulması halinde mevcut uygulamada kullanılan cumhurbaşkanlığı forsunun kaldırılabilmesinin yasal bakımdan önünün açılacağını savunan Özgündüz, şu değerlendirmelerde bulundu: "Burada bir başka sıkıntı çıkacaktır; Türk Bayrağı tüzüğünde şu anda kullanılan cumhurbaşkanlığı forsu var. Cumhurbaşkanı devletin başı sıfatıyla onu kullanıyor. Yarın siz devlet arması yaptığınız anda 'ben devletin başıyım, dolayısıyla bu armayı kullanacağım' diyerek mevcut forsu kaldırabilir. Kanun, tüzükten üstte olduğu için bu uygulanacaktır. Dolayısıyla ilk kez Atatürk tarafından 1922'de İzmir ziyaretinde kullanılan bu mevcut cumhurbaşkanlığı forsu da zımnen ilga edilmiş olacaktır. [...] "İyi niyetten şüphem yok ama halkın belirlediği bir sembol var zaten. O da ay ve yıldızdır. 'Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin niye arması yok?' diye sorduğunuz zaman, toplum buna ihtiyaç hissetmiyor. Ay-yıldız var zaten. Ay-yıldız aynı zamanda devletin de sembolüdür. Bu ay-yıldız yerine başka bir sembol belirleyecek olursanız kıyamet kopacak, gereksiz bir tartışma çıkacak. Ne söylerseniz söyleyin, tersini söyleyen de çıkacaktır. Herkesin kabul ettiği ay,yıldız varken ayrı bir sembol arayışı zaman kaybına gereksiz bir tartışmaya yol açacaktır. Ortada bir boşluk yok. Anayasa'nın üçüncü maddesine bir ilave yapar, 'Ay-yıldız aynı zamanda devletin sembolüdür' deriz."

So Turkey does not have coat of arms. Until a new law is adopted. End of the debate? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The TRTHaber article is very interesting and sheds a lot of light on why this topic is so controversial, as someone that had no idea about any of this controversy two days ago it's been very fascinating for me to learn about all of this. i would say that this ends the debate for now but that article is almost nine years old at this point. Has there been no update on this since January 2015? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't know the topic was this controversial either. (Worth using this source to improve National emblem of Turkey btw). As far as I know, there's been no progress. Given how polarized Turkish society is, it seems unlikely that Turkish politicians will reach a consensus on this any time soon. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There had been law proposal to design one in 2015 but nothing. Beshogur (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Why arent the Turkish Sultanate of Rum or the Turkish Principalitys included in the establishment part of the Turkey info box?

I would want them to be included.. DaManFrFr (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

For much the same reason as the one given to you in Talk: Greece. Uness232 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I back that, since modern Turkey and Anatolia overlaps pretty much, the beginning of Turkish presence in Anatolia should be mentioned in the establishmentinfobox. Main events are : Battle of Manzikert and founding of Sultanate of Rum Yakamoz51 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, modern Turkey and Anatolia only really overlap in Turkish nationalist discourse. See Anatolia for more information on that. Also, the Sultanate of Rûm was a very different state than modern Turkey for a variety of reasons. Modern historiography contends that the late Ottoman Empire (post-1800s) was really the only administrative predecessor to Turkey. Uness232 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone know where to find total 2022 foreign trade stats by sector?

Turkstat seems to have them for individual months but does anyone know where to find for the complete year? I ask as I am updating agriculture in Turkey and want to know what share of exports were from agriculture in 2022 Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/tur#:~:text=Exports%20The%20top%20exports%20of,and%20Iraq%20(%2411.1B). Moxy- 11:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy Ah I did not know about that site. I could not find the agriculture share as a total though as there was so much detail. However the fact that Turkey is the world's biggest importer of sunflower seeds was new to me and may be useful for a DYK hook thanks very much Chidgk1 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please comment changes or label them "minor"

Hello @Metuboy

You have only commented one of the many changes you made today. Please could you give us a brief overview of their purpose as I am struggling to understand from diffs Chidgk1 (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

The article is reduced in size significantly a few days ago and there were many sandwiching of text between the images. So I tried to fix them by removing some images and adjusting their positions inside the article. Indeed I should have added Minor option for them.

I am not sure if it is possible add Minor option or add a comment later on. If it is possible I am not aware of it.

But this is the main change that I did though the articles. Also I added some See Also and Main Article hyperlinks for some sections. Since they were missing and readers might want to get more information about the specifics. Metuboy (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking for better lead pic for Agriculture in Turkey

If you have any idea please suggest at Talk:Agriculture_in_Turkey#Any_suggestions_for_better_lead_picture? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sports

"Other mainstream sports such as basketball and volleyball are also popular. The men's national basketball team and women's national basketball team have been successful."

No word about women's volleyball? World champs in girls, European champs in adults, many more international success stories both by national selections and clubs in all age groups. Where are the -mostly- Greek and Armenian editors who work hard everyday to add more and more shit to (I mean "improve" - sic) this article? They should write a long section on Turkish women's volleyball here (other than giving a link to the related article) and "maybe" we could forgive a small part of their sins in Wikipedia. Regards. 212.174.190.24 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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: [4], [5], [6] (earlier this year used "Turkey" as in [7], but then switched to "Türkiye")
• AzerNews: [8], [9], [10], [11]
• Xinhua: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

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)

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)

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)

Türkiye'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)

A sea of blue

@Fatihoztrk950: With increasing speed, you have introduced and re-introduced a "sea of blue links"[17][18][19][20][21], although three editors have tried to explain (so far only via edit summaries) that the manual of style discourages to have multiple adjacent linked pieces of text. In this context, I am confused that you mention the infobox of United States; if you refer to the corresponding parameter |government_type= in that article, it goes: Federal presidential constitutional republic, which is clearly not a sea of blue. Austronesier (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, I apologize for the editing war. I am really trying to do my best for the Turkey page. I saw many unnecessary edits on this page and intervened. In the case of the United States, I found that the title "Federal, presidential, constitutional, republic" where the word "constitutional" is related to the United States Constitution and provides an additional means of information for readers. I implemented this because using it for the Turkey page would also be an additional resource for readers. But I just saw it. You have edited that page according to the current rules. This is enough for me. So, I do not think it is right to discriminate against a page on this issue. That was my goal. Fatihoztrk950 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What about "Presidential unitary republic based on the Constitution of Turkey"? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit longish for an infobox entry. But sure, we should be open (for my part, I absolutely am) for a concise solution that can accomodate User:Fatihoztrk950's rationale and at same time doesn't give the reader a doubt where they have to click on if they want more infomation about a piece of linked text. –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Constitutional presidential unitary republic? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)