Talk:Turkey

Türkiye in the opening sentence

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

I agree. This usage became more common in official organizations. Beshogur (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Potentially agree with this having personally seen it in travel ads, but it would be better to have sources that demonstrate normal English use as a name rather than 3 links which all simply reflect Turkish government statements. CMD (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean exactly by “normal English use”, but there are news outlets and other websites that switched to Türkiye (see for instance this article on the OSCE website).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, Turkey or Turkiye should be written. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

English letters must be used. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It already says Republic of Türkiye. LionelCristiano (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I was born in Argentina but I am Turkish. 🇹🇷❤️🇦🇷 LionelCristiano (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

English letters can include accent marks EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that it should stay as it was before @Kiril Simeonovski's edit. Per @CMD's point, do we have sources that demonstrate it is widely used as a standalone name? Even then, do we have any specific guidelines telling that articles should follow this repetitive structure? Ideally, there should be a longer discussion on this, and Mr. Simeonovski should revert their edit per WP:BRD, because it was done 5 minutes after they started this thread on December 7, and even after this brief series of comments, I can't say there is a clear consensus. Not to mention that the initial edit overruled the comment in the sourcecode that explicitly states Do not change lead sentence to Türkiye per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. Aintabli (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We do really want something better than a fourth multilateral institution. CMD (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think international organizations that Turkey is a member of are great bellwethers of common use. They have no reason not to accept the wishes of their member countries and are not particularly motivated to use terms that are understandable by wide audiences. I haven't looked into news media or independent academic usage since the last big RfC, but I'm not sure enough evidence has been shown that we should move away from the stable, concise compromise "Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli: My edit didn’t overrule anything, as I didn’t change “Turkey” to “Türkiye”, but just added the latter after the former, which still presents “Turkey” as the primary name. Firefangledfeathers, if the sources above aren’t compelling because they’re from organisations that the country is a member of, then there are sources that the European Union uses the new name, which Turkey is most definitely not a member of (see this report). There are research papers by non-Turkish authors that use the name “Türkiye” (see this). There are even non-Turkish news outlets that use “Türkiye” (see this). I don’t say the article should be renamed because “Turkey” is still the primary name in the English language, but there’s sufficient amount of sources that “Türkiye” is also used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not about membership per se, the sources you gave are all from formal multilateral institutions which are simply going to reflect the Turkish government as a matter of course. Anything published by the EU or the IMF falls into a similar category. I don't know much about the Middle East Monitor, but it appears to be closer to the sort of source that shows ordinary usage. CMD (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Middle East Monitor is a long way from ordinary English-language usage in the media. There's zero use of Türkiye in mainstream English language media. From personal experience I know there has been zero knowledge of the word amongst "ordinary" English-speakers. However, the first signs of that changing, I think, is people noticing it in Turkish-government tourism advertising. It will be interesting to see if that's the thing that changes usage in the end. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the safest way to go when you don't like something is move the goal posts. At first, the international organisations used to be the main problem, but now a research paper and a London-based not-for-profit organisation are also problematic. To add some context, there's a disclaimer on the page of the paper that says IMF Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management., which clearly states that the paper doesn't represent the views of the IMF. Do we have any guidelines that international organisations cannot be used as reliable sources? What makes a source more reliable than other? The only thing that we have is this list, which doesn't mention any of the sources provided here as unreliable. If "Türkiye" were used in mainstream English-language media, that would make a strong case to rename the article (as we did with virtually all Ukrainian cities). There are even practical reasons why "Türkiye" should be used in the opening sentence. As the infobox uses the IMF as a source for the GDP data, a reader willing to vet the source would end up getting "Türkiye" instead of "Turkey".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As a Turk, I support @Kiril Simeonovski it should remain Turkey or Türkiye. Do not revert the change. LionelCristiano (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No goal posts have been moved. Further, it's unclear why you are raising reliability and RS/P as they are not relevant to the question here. This is about assessing English language use, and trying to argue that an IMF-published paper demonstrates ordinary usage is not a productive avenue on that matter. CMD (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

1 "The word Türkiye represents and expresses the culture, civilisation, and values of the Turkish nation in the best way," Erdoğan said. How do u think about ? LionelCristiano (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it is unrelated to MOS:LEADSENTENCE. CMD (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. However, common name policy may apply, regardless of international concerns. I know that Turks love their country very much and how powerful the Turkish nationalism is, as LionelCristiano said. Kys5g ^talk! 04:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I provided reliable sources in the English language that clearly demonstrate the use of the name “Türkiye” as an alternative to "Turkey" (they don't make up majority, which is why "Turkey" should remain the primary name, but they most definitely exist). Sources reflecting Turkish government statements? This is a made-up criterion that goes even against our naming conventions. WP:WIAN lists the The World Factbook, which evidently uses both names in its country's directory, as an example of disinterested and authoritative reliable reference work.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to being made up, it's the exact spirit behind WP:COMMONNAME. The sources you listed were all from multilateral institutions and other official bodies that are going to simply adopt the official government name. If we can't find examples of usage that is not determined by a bureaucratic application of politically correct terminology, it is unlikely that the names reach the 10%ish usage point of potential inclusion in the article. CMD (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant here as it explains which name should be preferred as primary. If “Türkiye” were the common name, the article would need to be renamed, but it’s not the case. I’m wondering why WP:WIAN lists the The World Factbook as an example if it makes a “bureaucratic application of politically correct terminology”.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good question for WIAN, it clearly doesn't fit there. CMD (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli: My edit didn’t overrule anything, as I didn’t change “Turkey” to “Türkiye”, but just added the latter after the former, which still presents “Turkey” as the primary name. Firefangledfeathers, if the sources above aren’t compelling because they’re from organisations that the country is a member of, then there are sources that the European Union uses the new name, which Turkey is most definitely not a member of. There are research papers by non-Turkish authors that use the name “Türkiye”. I don’t say the article should be renamed because “Turkey” is still the primary name in the English language, but there’s sufficient amount of sources that “Türkiye” is also used. If you ask all Turks in the world, I am sure that everyone will support this view. LionelCristiano (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I've revereted this. There's no consensus for it. It's also a pointless change - or already references it in the "official name". DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What you did is not right. LionelCristiano (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If you ask all Turks in the world, I am sure that everyone will support this view. Ironic. Aintabli (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is not important for u, it is an important change for me. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Personalizing changes is not suitable for Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm surprised that you reverted this as an involved party in the discussion. You expressed your opinion that it should be removed, which is fine, but an involved editor isn't entitled to judge whether there's consensus or not. It should be done by an uninvolved editor per WP:CONSENSUS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised at 12k edits you have such a basic misunderstanding. That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works - this isn't an RfC. You, on the other hand, should be following WP:BRD: restore your edit only once there is a consensus for it, which clealrly there isn't yet. DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Don’t worry. I understand all that’s needed. WP:CONSENSUS doesn’t apply to RfCs only, but to all discussions that involve consensus-building. I’ve correctly followed it hundreds of times in ITN discussions in a time-span of more than twelve years. As for WP:BRD, I’d gladly apply it if any of you opposing the addition of “Türkiye” to the article pointed out to a clear guideline/rule to support your arguments. Instead, one editor incorrectly argued that my edit had violated the comment in the source code of changing “Turkey” to “Türkiye”, and another one misapplied and misinterpreted WP:COMMONNAME. Moreover, there’s the The World Factbook, which uses both names, as an example of an authoritative reference work for modern country names at WP:WIAN. But fair enough, I can live with it. It’s not the worst thing I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course WP:CONSENSUS applies. But nowhere does it say that consensus has to be determined by an uninvolved editor. That's ridiculous. Almost all talk page discussions are concluded without an uninvolved editor determining consensus. If there's a dispute about consensus then one of the formal dispute resolution processes can be invoked and an uninvolved editor then may take up that role then. As far as supporting arguments why your edit is incorrect - that's set out below. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS#By soliciting outside opinions states When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because editors uninvolved in the discussion can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves.. It’s as clear as day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I just said!! But no one has done that so that's why your edit summary here is just plain wrong. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

After making wrong claims about WP:CONSENSUS and eventually admitting they were wrong, now you’re digging yourself in a hole even deeper. My edit you’re referring to simply undid a revert made by you as an involved editor at time when you were trying to contest my original edit, which was accepted and uncontested for almost five days. Now that you want to revert it, you need to build consensus, which would be fleshed out and confirmed by an uninvolved party. But never mind, I didn’t bring your second revert back as I didn’t want to engage in edit-warring with you. It’d be totally unproductive and time-consuming.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I can live with you gaslighting your way out of that bizarre edit summary. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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

• Tech.eu: [1], [2], [3] (earlier this year used "Turkey" as in [4], but then switched to "Türkiye")
• AzerNews: [5], [6], [7], [8]
• Xinhua: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

I can certainly found much more if I make a more thorough search, but these should be enough to prove that the name "Türkiye" is indeed used in the English language as an alternative name.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you find just one mainstream English-language media outlet (none of which the above are) that uses Türkiye? None of BBC, CNN, the American or Canadian TV networks and none of the major newspapers in the those countries do. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa's source experience matches my own. I'll add that there's some guidance for us at WP:PLACE#Alternative names, which suggests that we include names "used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know when did the mainstream English-language media outlets start to dictate the use of names in the English language. At the very least, they didn’t prevent the use of or weren’t taken into account at all when adding “Cabo Verde” and “Timor-Leste” to Cape Verde and East Timor, respectively, when it’s obvious that none of those media outlets have ever used any of the alternative names. Firefangledfeathers, it’s good to introduce more detailed guidance on this, but first we need to get rid of the double standards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The BBC, The New York Times, CNN and The Guardian are major English-language WP:RS. Xinhua, AzerNews and Tech.eu (sorry the last two are so non-notable I can't even wikilink) are not. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s undeniably true that they’re mainstream English-language reliable sources, but they cannot simply annul the use by other reliable sources (or sources that aren’t blacklisted or deemed unreliable on Wikipedia). None of the less-known English-language sources presented earlier in this discussion are considered unreliable. If the official newspaper of the British Royal Navy uses the name, then nothing can deny that it’s really used in the English language. Either it’s used or not—it’s simple as that.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't say that mainstream English-language media don't use Timor Leste. They definitely do, although still quite below the threshold to justify a page move (see the last move discussion). –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DeCausa, here are articles from the Australian Broadcasting Company and the Special Broadcasting Service of Australia indicating the switch to Turkiye

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-18/king-approves-turkish-airways-expansion-after-qatar-rejection/103243376

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-08/around-150-people-working-to-save-man-stuck-in-turkiye-cave/102834634

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/passenger/passenger-turkiye/102544494

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-16/turkiye-election-board-head-confirms-run-off-to-be-held-may-28/102349646

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-28/turkiye-great-lakes-are-drying-up/102366986

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australias-facebook-gangster-hakan-ayik-arrested-in-turkiye-after-decade-on-the-run/1ynsijjd2

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/recep-tayyip-erdogan-facing-runoff-in-turkiyes-presidential-election/73ngwwgji

https://www.sbs.com.au/language/turkish/en/article/euro-visions-battling-it-out-in-turkiyes-elections/59xy8lzbn

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/is-turkey-safe-to-travel-to-right-now-here-is-the-latest-advice-for-australians/0rivn575z

The ABC and SBS are the National Broadcasters of Australia.

This is from CNA, which is the national news broadcaster for Singapore

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/turkiye-will-no-longer-send-imams-german-mosques-german-ministry-3989306

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/turkiye-condemns-israel-jenin-raid-calls-accountability-3991211

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/turkiyes-erdogan-rejects-us-pressure-cut-hamas-ties-3961421

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/more-100-gaza-evacuees-patients-arrive-turkiye-israel-hamas-war-3933721

I don't think the article should be renamed since Turkey is obviously used way more often, but I think there is enough evidence that Turkiye is being used in the English speaking world as an accepted alternative based on my sources and the national broadcasters of two countries where English is the official language. 101.173.197.213 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

yes, I had recently noticed ABC's policy (I don't think the other links are notable). It's an interesting development and even more interesting if they keep with the policy. Their position is explained here. They acknowledge that they are an outlier - will they persevere as a pioneer that others will join or will they return to the fold as a failed experiment? Time will tell. At the moment it's more of an exception that proves the rule. @Austronesier: that ABC source might be something for your query on English-speakers pronunciation of Türkiye. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's hard to argue that the national broadcaster of Singapore isn't notable. Yeah it's probably not equivalent to the NYT, Guardian etc are but it's still the national english language broadcaster of 5 million people.

I will accept that the SBS is probably just following ABC's guidelines (even though they are technically separate).

I can accept the exception to the rule argument for now, but I think it will just be time until most of Australia follows it and then most of New Zealand too. 101.173.197.213 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa A valid counter to CNA's Turkiye's usage is that the Staits Times (newspaper of record for Singapore) still uses Turkey so it seems that even Singapore isn't fully converted yet: https://www.straitstimes.com/tags/turkey

So given a lack of abundance of usage outside Turkey by mainstream publications except the ABC/SBS, I am inclined to agree with the view that we should wait until some other mainstream papers adopt the spelling. 101.173.197.213 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to prepare for the case that we get consensus to add Türkiye as an alternative name: what's the English IPA transcription for this purportedly more than just perfunctorily used name? Even though we shouldn't base it on OR, I'm curious to hear what non-Turkish-speaking news readers currently produce when saying Türkiye in English-language broadcasts. I've tried to find something on YouTube, but with no success. –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Since it’s an endonym introduced in the English language, it should keep the original pronounciation and be /ˈtyɾcije/.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That would not work; endonyms, even if they keep their spelling the same and pronunciation as similar as is possible, generally do not retain the same phonological features in the target language.

I'm not discussing the change itself (which I don't have time to delve into), but @Austronesier raises a good point; do we have any established pronunciation of Türkiye in English that monolingual English speakers can actually produce?

Beyond [y] being problematic (although not impossible), I've never seen a monolingual English speaker (outside of the few English-speaking regions that use it, and even then) pronounce the Turkish [ɾ] in a 'standard' fashion. This is especially due to the rather unusual Turkish realization of this sound; oftentimes full contact is not made, leading to [ɾ̞̊]. Attempts by English speakers to create this sound usually yield [ɹ] (an approximant, which is dialect in Turkish as [ɹ̠], not as any of the common realizations in English) or [r] (a trill, which is even rarer). Uness232 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It will be an interesting exercise to see if anyone can find a video or audio clip of an English-language native speaker newsreader (ie.e not TRT World etc) using "Türkiye" as a matter of course in place of or even with "Turkey" in an English-language broadcast. Just a guess, but I think if Türkiye is ever adopted in English (a very big if) it will be adopted in print but not in the spoken language - rather like Paris v. Paree i.e. it will be pronounced "Turkey". DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

At least it should be written this way to be understood

Turkey, officially the Republic of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) LionelCristiano (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No it should not. This had been discussed several times. Beshogur (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Let it be discussed again. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur Türkiye is not an English word, and this is the English version of Wikipedia. As simple as that. We say Federal Republic of Germany, not Federal Republic of Deutschland. Those few institutions and media that have switched (the word itself shows the artificiality of the use), have done so for political reasons, which should not influence the neutrality and objectivity of an encyclopedia. Melitensis77 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We have thousands of articles whose titles are not English words let alone merely adding it in the lead sentence. Cabo San Lucas, Nara (city), Haleʻiwa, Hawaii, Champs-Élysées, Nunavut to name a few. Accent marks are not an issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed they are not. Pandering to the Turkish government's will is. Melitensis77 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not waste people's time here. This had been discussed dozens of times. Beshogur (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur I'm afraid it is not just your opinion which can be voiced here, unacceptable and outrageous that your 'argument' is to shut people up. Melitensis77 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. We discussed this hundreds of times and there was a consensus about. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason to refrain from adding this name. We describe phenomena, disputes, changes, etc. neutrally. Just as having Armenian genocide as an article title is not a defiance to the Turkish government, neither is including Türkiye pandering to the Turkish government. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir Including 'Türkiye' in an English sentence, when there already is an English word, Turkey, is indeed pandering to the wishes of Erdogan. It is indeed bowing to that government. Other languages, if not all most, have simply ignored that absurd demand of the Turkish government to start calling it how they want, because they don't like the poultryesque name in English. So, indeed the debate is closed. Turkey is the only name in English for that country, anything else is pandering or worse. Melitensis77 (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Our job here is not to specifically oppose or contradict the wishes of any government, the same way that it is not to validate the wishes of any. If it is 'bowing' to a government to merely include information about its preferred official name, then 'bow' we shall. At least that's what the current consensus is; you would need to convince a lot more people for that to change. Uness232 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: The article does, indeed, include information about the current Turkish government's preferred official name in a foreign language: one third of Turkey#Name is given over to this two-year-old idea, as much as is written on nearly one thousand years of history about the English name "Turkey", or "Turkeye" as Chaucer wrote it. Bazza (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but I do not see how that is relevant to the lede. If there is a WP:DUE problem in that section, that can readily be resolved by summarizing, trimming, etc. Uness232 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"So, indeed the debate is closed" ... you do not get to unilaterally decide this, especially if your reason is that you don't like what you perceive as kowtowing to Erdogan. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I'm pretty sure we had a consensus on this. "Türkiye is not English!!!" is not an argument. All official organizations (UN/NATO/EU/FIFA/whatever) uses Türkiye. Thus "Republic of Turkey" is not the official name anymore. There was a user claiming something like "countries can not have official name". That's a bad reasoning as well. Countries indeed have an official name. Beshogur (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Those are the names that are used for those places in English discourse. "Türkiye" generally is not. Largoplazo (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The Republic of Türkiye changed its official name from The Republic of Turkey on 26 May 2022 in a request submitted to the Secretary-General by the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs.[14] "Republic of Turkey" is nowhere used anymore. I can't believe people still insisting this without checking previous discussions in archive. Another example is Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. "It's not English" is the worst argument I've heard. Please stop this nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support: "Turkey, officially the Republic of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti)". This conforms best to with Wikipedia guidelines. Per above, these are the names that are used in English, "Türkiye" generally is not used.  // Timothy :: talk  22:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue: which "Wikipedia guidelines"? Beshogur (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Id like to point out that back in 2022 the UN officially recognized turkeys official name change to Türkiye Space772 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  It changed it's official English name to Türkiye Space772 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: "Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti)". LionelCristiano (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  This resource explains it all. 1 -LionelCristiano (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  “Republic of Türkiye” should be used in formal and diplomatic contexts. LionelCristiano (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  @LionelCristiano It is curious how this nonsense is not being done in other important languages, such as Spanish, German, French, Italian... On their articles the official name is given fully in the respective language. No matter what a clique in the English Wikipedia (who I'm starting to doubt have English as their mother tongue) decide here, they do not get to decide what the English language should be, at this point I have to say obeying Erdogan. The United Nations is a joke that includes dictatorships that can influence decisions. So go right ahead, dear clique, and mess up the English version of Wikipedia. Melitensis77 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  How can French speaking people call their country "Republic of Côte d'Ivoire" in English, how dare they(!) Beshogur (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I was drawn here by seeing "Türkiye" on a travel ad, after battling with some over-enthusiastic Turkish patriots over some aviation articles. In the UK, the BBC still use "Turkey", as does gov.uk. The US Department of State at least has the courtesy to use "Turkey (Türkiye)", and according to the BBC the UN has adopted "Türkiye." We are clearly in a state of transition and Wikipedia will have to judge its moment to make its move. That will be governed by a consensus, probably here, to do so. That consensus has not yet emerged. Have patience, my Turkish colleagues, I am sure it will in due course. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Too much history in the lead?

In the body of this article there is a history section and five other sections.

Yet half the lead is about history.

I think the lead should be rebalanced to be a quarter or at most a third history with more added from other sections. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at some of the FA class country articles. Both Germany and India have two paragraphs on history. In this article, some of the sentences might be trimmed, but there are also missing information. I think 2 paragraphs for history is appropriate though. And the last paragraph needs to be expanded to cover the rest of the article. So 4 paragraphs in total, and we would meet the recommended paragraph number in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length.

Youprayteas, I reverted your changes for now. If you search talk page archives, there seems to be an RFC that was done regarding some of the changes you made [15]. Even though it is an old one (almost 7 years!), you might need a new RFC. If you decide to proceed with a RFC though, please wait a week or two, as there are lots of missing stuff in the lead, and I'll be working on them. Also I'm surprised you took out Göbeklitepe, it's a very important site and mentioned in Human history for example, a Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/1 article. Bogazicili (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Cannot we cut the prehistory and early history by linking to History of Anatolia perhaps via a hatnote? Otherwise that just leaves 2 paras for everything other than history and prehistory. The first paragraph is mostly geography with a brief mention of demographics and economics - are you happy with that paragraph?

I guess we all agree the fourth paragraph needs improving - so perhaps we should start a new discussion titled “4th paragraph”. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

For example “After the prehistory and history of Anatolia, and history and fall of the Ottoman Empire ………………. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting we replace most of 2nd and 3rd paragraph with that sentence? If that's an outline, and not the actual suggestion, that's already the format in this article. 2 paragraphs for everything else should be enough. Excessive detail is given to EU-relations part for example:

"After becoming one of the early members of the Council of Europe in 1950, Turkey became an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995, and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005."

Again, the lead of India, which is FA, is much longer. Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I see you or someone else has already improved a bit about the EU. I have started a new discussion below about the 4th para so we can concentrate on history here. My sentence above is not an exact suggestion but to give an idea. I still don’t see why history is so important that it deserves half the lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If I calculated right even if we just cut down history from 50% of the lead to 40% that would still allow a dozen words for each of the following which are not mentioned at all but should be in my opinion:

current (21st century) national politics and government

environment (climate and biodiversity both have subsections in the body)

culture (well OK it does have one letter “C” in the lead) Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's half the lead, because other sections were not covered. So this discussion is premature, before the lead is expanded. Bogazicili (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I just happened to notice that the Library of Congress country study at https://www.loc.gov/resource/frdcstdy.turkeycountrystu00metz_0/?sp=29&st=image&r=-0.836,-0.674,2.673,1.72,0 starts with the formation of the Republic so I don’t see why Wikipedia is different and has to go back further Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I had missed this. Maybe you are looking at a later page? If you look at contents [16], they included Ancient Anatolia including Hittites etc, Romans and Byzantines, and intro into Turkic people such as Great Seljuks. I hadn't seen this source but that is exactly the format we are using. It's also same in the sources I'm using (Howard, Douglas A. (2016). The History of Turkey (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood. ISBN 978-1-4408-3466-0) Bogazicili (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How to improve the 4th paragraph of the lead?

I suspect we all agree that it could be improved - anyone disagree?

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

OK then I will start: remove “ currently ranks 17th-largest in the world by nominal GDP and 11th-largest by PPP” as not very useful to the reader and that info is in the infobox anyway. If necessary we can say “middle income country” as that is shorter. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Turkey is a newly industrialized country, and a founding member of the OECD and G20; its economy currently ranks 17th-largest in the world by nominal GDP and 11th-largest by PPP. With a geopolitically significant location, Turkey is a regional power and an early member of NATO. Turkey joined the EU Customs Union in 1995, and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005; it is also Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, Organization of Islamic Cooperation OIC, TURKSOY, and Organization of Turkic States. Home to 21 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, Turkey is the fourth most visited country in the world.

There are small fix suggestions for now. I will add to it later. Youprayteas (t • c) 16:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be working on it this week or next week. Bogazicili (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If you all think that culture deserves half a dozen words in the lead how about “Some Turks drink raki, others only ayran.” Chidgk1 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You are being sarcastic I suppose. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I was attempting both deep and amusing in that raki and ayran symbolise a certain polarisation of culture. Hopefully you or someone else has a better idea? Or perhaps you think culture is not important enough to mention in the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. At the moment there is nothing in the lead on the environment. If allowed only 3 words I think “Precipitation is decreasing” or “Snowfall is decreasing” is the most important thing. But if allowed more words you can no doubt write about the environment more readably and with better flow connecting to the other text. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead should say a little about 21st century government and politics - do you agree? How about “Turkey is a flawed democracy with most power wielded by the president.” which is 12 words? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds nice Youprayteas (t • c) 12:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No, too wordy and not neutral enough. "Turkey is a presidential republic" or "Officially, Turkey is a presidential republic" is enough. Then you can get into details in the subsection. Bogazicili (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili@Youprayteas and anyone - thoughts on my suggestion for the environment above? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think yes, culture should be mentioned, since the history is 50 percent of the lead. Kebab should definetly be mentioned too in my opinion as it symbolizes Turkey in some way (even though there are way better tasting Turkish foods in my opinion). I also think it should mention touristic sites such as Cappadocia and Pamukkale. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Nooooo -please no kebab stereotype! Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you Turkish by the way? It seems your Userpage says you are a native English speaker but you seem to be knowledged about Turkey. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I will reply on your user talk unless being Turkish or not is relevant to this discussion Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not, and yes, sorry, that would be more appropriate of me to bring it to talk page. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

So we have over 250 words about history and prehistory but 12 words on politics and government is too many? I would like to hear other editors opinions on such a word imbalance Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Bogazicili (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

So I went over the 3rd paragraph in the lead today. I know the word count didn't change much, but significant information was missing. I'll go over first two paragraphs tomorrow.

For the Government and politics section, these parts also count: With a geopolitically significant location, Turkey is a regional power[32] and an early member of NATO. Turkey joined the EU Customs Union in 1995, and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005; it is also a member of the Council of Europe, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, TURKSOY, and Organization of Turkic States.

I think we should just say "Turkey is a unitary presidential republic with a multi-party system". For “Precipitation is decreasing”, I was thinking of saying "highly vulnerable to climate chane"? Bogazicili (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You are right with the green text that geopolitics is covered somewhat although perhaps it would be useful for geopolitics to specifically mention “Russia” and “Middle East” and reduce European Union to one mention. I think ‘it is also ……’ should be removed as those organisations are less significant to Turkey than Russia and the Middle East.

Re govt the infobox already says “Unitary presidential constitutional republic” so your suggestion does not add much to that. However I looked at the lead of India as you mentioned it is featured, and it does not mention any flaws in their democracy.

I think everyone reading this discussion should take a look at the 4th para of India as it is rather good I think so we could steal some ideas from there. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Prod me if I don’t come up with anything about environment in next couple of days - I should look at India and ponder but I might forget Chidgk1 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

How about "Russia supplies much of Turkey's energy" Chidgk1 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm finally done with first 3 paragraphs. It took a surprisingly long amount of time. The lead is currently 488 words, so we can maybe add something like 40 words to the last paragraph. We can also trim the large EU sentence. This is above Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length recommendations, but I believe it should be fine. It's far below India. Bogazicili (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the lead. Currently has 545 words. Chidgk1, "It is a unitary presidential republic with a multi-party system" is repeating the infobox a bit, but I checked several countries and they also have information repeating the infobox. I believe it's the most concise way to describe the government. Youprayteas, I didn't add kebap, but I did add something about the overall cuisine. Bogazicili (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

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

---

Change government titles in infobox to translations instead of names of analog offices in Anglophone countries, like in other country articles.

• President -> President of the Republic
• Vice President -> Vice President of the Republic
• Assembly Speaker -> President of the Assembly
• Chief Justice -> President of the Constitutional Court 31.223.50.18 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The article is too long

It's currently 13,585 words or 87kb.[17] Will aim for under 9k words per Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3. That means multiple sections will need to be trimmed. Although some areas need expansion. For example, coverage of earthquakes, faultlines etc are ridiculously short. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Trimming is certainly a good thing, but you should ensure first that the child articles are in an appropriate shape. E.g., Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey is much better writen than History_of_Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey; the latter trails off into a mere timeline (but then child-child article History of the Republic of Turkey is looks better). This is relevant because History of Turkey in its entirety is the child article of Turkey#History. So anyonw jumping straight from the section Turkey#History to History of Turkey will have – as of now – a worse reading experience at the bottom of the latter than at the bottom of the Turkey#History. I only mention this because I have seen cases trimming of main articles without brushing up the child articles. I think @CMD can be of much help in the challenge of how to create best structure and best content in article hierarchies. –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity

@Bogazicili Two things before we get to the material discussed. Please do not re-revert when your change away from the stable version has been reverted. Secondly, the template you have given me for 'not providing a valid reason in the edit summary' is wholly inappropriate; I explained my reasoning quite clearly in an edit summary.

As for the content dispute; I disagree with you on multiple counts.

1) I disagree with the comment made by the peer reviewer; all citizens are Turkey are not by definition Turkish -- at least not by most definitions. Turkish as an identity covering all citizens is virtually never cited as an ethnic definition, but rather a legal term, because it was created as such and is generally not used by ethnically non-Turkish citizens as a pan-ethnicity. Our article on Turkish people makes this distinction:

While the legal use of the term Turkish as it pertains to a citizen of Turkey is different from the term's ethnic definition, the majority of the Turkish population (an estimated 70 to 75 percent) are of Turkish ethnicity.

Here, as in most WP:RS, a simple distinction is drawn; there is the ethnic definition of Turkish, covering three-fourths of the Turkey's population, and the legal definition, which is contrasted with the ethnic definition, and includes nearly everyone. The latter does not belong in the ethnic groups section, because it is not referred to, in WP:RS, as an ethnicity. (See the sources given from my quote)

2) There is, indeed, another ideological stance that knowingly conflates the legal term with the ethnic term. This should be considered WP:FRINGE, however, as I have never seen WP:RS that defends a Turkish origin for the Kurds, for example. That much is pseudo-science from the 1980 military junta. So if this second position is what you are referring to as ethnicity, then it would be WP:POV to use it here.

3) Yes, German can have a citizenship-based definition, but the context and the politics surrounding that are entirely different, and the German infobox has no "ethnic groups" section.

Long story short, the definition you are providing is not thought of as an ethnic one in mainstream scholarship, and therefore should not go into the ethnic groups section. Uness232 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your revert was inappropriate because all the footnotes and reliably sourced information within was deleted without a proper reason. You didn't just remove the parts you objected to, like the percentages.

As for the content issue, the footnotes make it clear. For example, there are people who identify as both a Turk and Kurd in Turkey. For example, Hülya Avşar: "hem Kürdüm hem Türküm" [18]. You do not get to say she is not a Turk, but just a Kurd. You also do not get to say she is not a Kurd, but just a Turk.

This is the footnote: "Turkish constitution defines all citizens as “Turks”.[6] In surveys, when asked about their ethnic background, people may self-report different answers.[7] Some people have multiple ethnic identities.[8][9]" Everything in the footnote is WP:RS

It makes the legal definition clear. It makes it clear people may self-identify in different ways. It also makes it clear some people like Hülya Avşar have multiple ethnic identities. And the infobox gives percentages based on both definitions.

Pages like Germans, French people just give the citizenship numbers. Germany doesn't have ethnicity info in the infobox. But Turkey does. So just giving the one, single-choice (adds up to 100%) definition, while ignoring the citizenship definition (or ignoring people who identify as both Turk and Kurd etc) is biased (against WP:NPOV). Turkish people should also give the numbers for both. Maybe the only thing I can add is to give examples in the footnote: "people may self-report different answers, such as Kurd or Arab"

I forgot to add. Giving the legal definition does not mean suggesting "Turkish origin for the Kurds". That is ridiculous. Bogazicili (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili People might indeed have multiple ethnic identities. However, unlike Hülya Avşar's case, some people may also identify as both Kurd and Zaza, or might identify with two other non-Turkish ethnicities. The citizenship definition does not get rid of this problem; to say it does would be assuming that everyone who identifies with multiple ethnic groups are by definition identifying with "Turk" along with a non-Turkish identity, which is not the case. If there is a problem here, it is with the people making these surveys; that is not our problem to fix.

Moving past that, my initial problem with this edit is simple: the legal/citizenship-based definition of "Turk" is not considered an ethnic one by WP:RS. The citizenship definition therefore should be excluded from the "ethnic groups" section of the infobox. Placing it somewhere else might be perfectly acceptable, but not there. If you are bothered by people with multiple identities not being represented, I believe some surveys include multiple answers for self-identification; I would be perfectly fine with the inclusion of such a source.

Also, I did not mean to say that you specifically were suggesting a Turkish origin for the Kurds. I am simply saying that that is the only way the citizenship definition of Turk can be viewed as an ethnic grouping. Uness232 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, see WP:NPOV. There is no single definition of "ethnicity". There is no single definition of "Turk". If there is going to be an infobox, it should include multiple definitions. The alternative is omitting percentages in the infobox (like Germany). However, the footnote should stay after this line "most are ethnic Turks, while ethnic Kurds are the largest ethnic minority.[b][4]" in the lead. The footnote after population number "85,372,377[a][5]" should stay.

Also, the infobox was clear

"By citizenship:[a][5]

98% Turks

2% Others" Bogazicili (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili I have read WP:NPOV before, thank you. There may be no single definition of ethnicity, but in its Turkish context, citizenship is never equated with ethnic categorization in mainstream scholarship; if you can find me examples of this being done (specifically the 98% number being used as an ethnic qualifier; i.e. something like "Turkey's population is 98% Turkish") in reputable academic journals, I will concede this point.

The information given in the infobox might have been clear, but because of the previous point, it should not be in the ethnic groups section.

All that being said, I see which footnotes you were talking about now; I have no objections to those two, and sorry for reverting them along with what I objected to. Uness232 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232:, citizenship is not equated with ethnic categorization. I put it in the ethnicity field, because I couldn't find a way to add a custom field into the infobox template. I'd have renamed it as "ethnicity/citizenship". That's why the clarification was to the right ("By ethnic background", "By citizenship"). Bogazicili (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That 98% of residents of Turkey have Turkish citizenships is not sufficiently notable to include in the Infobox, and is a factoid that is rarely included in country infoboxes. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, sorry for random ping but we are discussing the issue you raised here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3, care to comment? Bogazicili (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong for Bogazicili to make this edit without consensus, it constantly violates WP:WAR policy. 176.55.188.95 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is now a mess and filling all these parameters makes it not necessarily better. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking back at that PR and the article state at the time, my comment referred to specific phrasing in the lead which has been improved since then. This dispute seems to be about the infobox, which is a bit more tricky as there isn't really room to craft words that provide nuance. There probably isn't a perfect solution that fits all perspectives, especially considering this is a prominent page in an international encyclopaedia that will be read by many people with no background knowledge of Turkish demographics. CMD (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Just stepping back from the detail, or at least the politics, and think about what readers might need or want. As a general statement, I don't think including the proportion of non-citizen residents of Turkey is a useful or interesting piece of information - at least for the Infobox. Except for countries like Saudi, it's not really a key aspect. One would expect to see the vast majority to be citizens. I'm not saying it couldn't be covered in the article text, but for the Infobox it needs to hit significant info only. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding citizenship is useless, since wiki template uses ethnic groups, not citizenship. All those discussion about citizenship is purposeless. No reason for adding citizenship. And I do not even think tüik report of 98% Turkish citizens is a true number with all those refugees, etc. Beshogur (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

i agree. Lionel Cristiano^? 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Syrians under temporary protection is not included in TUIK population stats, it's in the footnote. Bogazicili (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Uness232 Chipmunkdavis Shadow4dark DeCausa Beshogur Lionel Cristiano, should we keep ethnicity stats in the infobox given that "Turk" also has citizenship meaning? As previously mentioned, many countries do not have ethnicity stats in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say yes - the ethnic make up of the country is a significant issue that global readership would expect to have info on given the longstanding coverage and controversy around the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency. That's the usual case where there is ethnic conflict - see for example Cyprus, Nigeria etc DeCausa (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: This doesn't explain why you removed reliably sourced footnotes. User readability is a nonsensical excuse.

Also, looking to the Cyprus page, their demonym is "Cypriot", so saying Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots etc works.

Same for Nigeria. It doesn't say 70% Nigerian, 30% Hausa. Bogazicili (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your post doesn't make much sense. We have an article called Turkish Cypriots and an article called Kurds in Turkey. The Infoboxes would just reflect that standard nomenclature. Nigeria is different. There is no Nigerian identity separate from the component ethnicities. That's a different scenario. The point is ethinicity not citizenship is dealt with in both Infoboxes because it reflects a real world controversy. They're tailored to reflect the actualities of those contries. that's standard for country Infoboxes - Turkey should have the same treatment. You seem to be tie ing yourself in knots over something that is actually quite simple. (Removing the footnotes isn't directly related to this thread. We've discussed your POV pushing on my talk page which is a different issue.) DeCausa (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You seemed pretty hostile in your talk page and didn't provide adequate explanation. And, no, I'm not "POV pushing". You seem to not understand there is a difference between "Turk" and "ethnic Turk". Bogazicili (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between a Turkish citizen and an ethnic Turk. Is that what you are trying to say? Of course I understand that. The point is that the stats of the former are of no interest for the purposes of the Infobox whereas the stats of the latter would be of interest to a global readership. This latter point is what you seem not to get. DeCausa (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1) Do you still maintain the nonsensical excuse that footnotes that are currently in the article impair user readability? Should I expect further reverts from you from the current version of the article?

2) Do you understand the word "Turk" is a Homonym? Indeed it does ALSO mean "Turkish citizen". Bogazicili (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

WTF?? How has that got any bearing on what we are talking about? DeCausa (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: See below. Bogazicili (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili When we are talking about ethnicity, the word 'Turk' never means 'Turkish citizen'; which is what the infobox section is about. Uness232 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: This an assumption. This is an encyclopedia, some people will know nothing about Turkey. And again, many countries tie ethnicity to citizenship. Bogazicili (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree with DeCausa here. Uness232 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Uness232 so you want to keep using single choice CIA stats as if there are no one who's both ethnic Kurd and ethnic Turk. Bogazicili (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I'm sure there are surveys with multiple ethnicities as a possible answer. I remember seeing one back in 2022. However, if that solution is not possible, I would want the ethnicities to stay. I am also not particularly opposed to one concise footnote explaining how the ethnic definition is not the same as the legal term and demonym. Uness232 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd also prefer qualifiers such as ethnic Turks, ethnic Kurds, other ethnic backgrounds, not just Turks, Kurds etc. Bogazicili (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

ah. If somehow "ethnic Kurd" is better for you than "Kurd" then let's go with that. (It's a misconception that it makes a difference in the English language but if it resolves this for you, then no problem.) DeCausa (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1) Great. And, of course it does make a difference. Many countries tie ethnicity to citizenship. Germans, French people etc just give citizenship numbers, and ethnicity was omitted in their country articles. So saying 70% German, 30% X can mean 70% German citizen and 30% foreign citizens. Saying 70% "ethnic German" is completely different.

2) And I'm asking again: "Do you still maintain the nonsensical excuse that footnotes that are currently in the article impair user readability? Should I expect further reverts from you from the current version of the article?" I'm trying to improve the article and I don't want to deal with nonsensical time-consuming full reverts. Bogazicili (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1) It doesn't make a difference because the parameter in the Infobox is "Ethnic group". You've completely misunderstood the situation. Neither France nor Germany have the Ethnic group parameter completed in their infoboxes - which doesn't surprise me as the ethnic grouping doesn't have the same significance in those countries as in Turkey. Anyway, it doesn't matter now if you're happy with that wording. (just so you know, someone will rightly say that referencing "ethnic Turk" under a heading of "ethnic groups" is a redundancy.)

2) I couldn't give a shit. It's unnecessary clutter and better out than in but it wasn't the target of my revert which was the even worse clutter of the citizenship info that you put in. Just collateral damage but i wasn't sorry to see it go. If you want to keep that sort of pointlessness in i'm certainly not going to waste time removing it. DeCausa (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1) Not redundant for previously explained reasons.

2) Great, we established you don't "give a shit" and make full reverts, and you don't care about "collateral damage". Hopefully this won't repeat in the future. The article is currently in a bad shape and requires lots of work. I just don't want to waste too much time to nonsensical time-consuming full reverts. Bogazicili (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not letting that go. It is utterly redundant. Uness232 has just made the exact same point to you. You don't seem to understand that under the heading "ethic groups" the only criteria for inclusion is ethnicity not citizenship. It's irrelevant how the country in question defines citizenship. This has become so tedious I'm ok with you adding the word "ethnic" in but i would say it's an almost a near certainty that someone will take it out because it's redundant. And as far as your second point is concerned, yes i will make a "full" revert when you make a poor quality edit even when some of your edit is marginally less poor quality than other aspects. None of your nedit was worthwhile or improved the article. DeCausa (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And, again, some countries do tie ethnicity to citizenship, whereas other countries officially collect ethnicity/race stats. This issue was also commented in Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3 Bogazicili (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

So what? That's not the point. I give up. Seriously. DeCausa (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The point that approx 4 million Syrians under temp protection is not included in the official population number of ~85 million is also important and was in the footnote. But I'm sure you don't "give a shit" either. Bogazicili (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Countries do not tie ethnicity to citizenship. Many countries are named after a single, usually majority ethnic group, causing their demonyms to be used in two different senses: one ethnic, and the other legal. Turkey is one of these countries. Some nationalist political movements in Turkey might try to impose a top-down 'fusion' of those two senses aiming for the assimilation of other ethnic groups, but those two senses remain separate in WP:RS, with only one being referred to as ethnicity.

And by the way, calling people "ethnic X" in an infobox section called "ethnic groups" is a redundancy at best. Uness232 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: This started to become like a grandpa/uncle debate (this makes more sense in Turkish). No one is saying Kurdish ethnicity doesn't exist. You are arguing against a point I didn't make. Btw, there are also "nationalist political movements", or far right movements, that think ethnicity is all about "blood" in the world. My issue is with the oversimplification in the infobox. And this is WP:RS. Kirişci, Kemal; Winrow, Gareth M. (1997). The Kurdish Question and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict, p. 121:

However, in the case of Turkey, this inevitably raises the question of who is a Turk. Does the label 'Turk' refer to an ethnic background or to citizenship? How individuals perceive themselves is important. As noted earlier, individuals may perceive that they have a multiple identity. Which identity a person may choose to stress could be dependent on a particular context. And the largely psychological 'boundaries' between ethnic groups are not fixed. Different generations within a certain family could thus perceive themselves as either Kurdish or Turkish, or they may feel that they belong to both identities. A Kurd could consider him/herself to be a member of a specific tribe, hold a Kurdish ethnic identity and also feel him/ herself to be a Turkish citizen. On the other hand, a Kurd who is a citizen of Turkey may reject a Turkish identity in any form. Therefore someone like Hikmet Çetin would consider himself an ethnic Kurd of Turkish nationality (citizenship). He would regard himself as a Turkish Kurd. There are a number of Kurds, though, who not only refuse a Turkish identity in any form, but also publicly take offence against Hikmet Çetin for holding a multiple identity

Bogazicili (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It can also be written in other sections other than the information box. Lionel Cristiano^? 00:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the point. The country infobox is very rigid by consensus, and well-defined parameters should not be hijacked for information that is misplaced under that header (unless there a good reason and local consensus for it). I deliberately say "hijacked" because citizenship is not ethnicity. This is also the case when a term is used at different levels with different meanings. Turkey is no different from many other countries in this respect. There was a time when the national/citizenship definition was considered exclusive, and merely assertively self-identifying as anything else but Turkish was considered high treason at some point in the dark history of late 20th-century Turkey (at least for certain ethnic groups). But that doesn't mean that the Turkish constitution defines "Ethnicity" at any point–it deliberately doesn't do so to emphasize national unity over ethnic diversity.

The label "Ethnic groups" makes it inappropriate per se to include citizenship data within it. And our standard country infobox doesn't give room for the latter data. Even in extreme cases like the UAE with a very high proportion of non-citizen residents, we don't have citizenship stats in the infobox.

As for the same data (notes + sources) in the lede, I have no objection to their inclusion, although I don't consider them super-relevant here unless you also mention the negative impact that enforcement of this definition on Turkish citizens from a non-Turkish ethnic background has had in course of modern Turkish history. NB that's me; Uness232 and DeCausa might see things differently, so I'd advise not to restore anything. I have restored the stable version, since you have completely ignored the objections by two other editors in an ongoing discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: are you even aware what you reverted? Look at the previous version again. Bogazicili (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Very much so: The misplaced sentence Turkish constitution defines all citizens as “Turks” in the note in the infobox "Ethic groups", and the trivial statement that Turkish citizens self-identify ethnically the way they like. –Austronesier (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: As mentioned, no one including Uness232 and DeCausa objected to the footnotes. You also deleted the following footnote:

"Total Population: 85,372,377

Foreign Population: 1,570,543 (excludes "Syrians under temporary protection" and "foreigners holding visas or residence permits shorter than 90 days")

Turkish citizens: 83,801,834"

I guess the fact that almost 4 million Syrians under temporary protection is not included in official population number of ~85 million is also "trivial".

So let me ask again, are you even aware what you reverted? Bogazicili (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And you are aware that the figure of 1,570,543 is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? For the implications of this, I count on your awareness of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. –Austronesier (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm slowly improving the article from top to bottom. I would have gotten to it when I come to the demography section. But again, no one is objecting to footnotes. You deleted reliably sourced information for no reason. Bogazicili (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

None, except for the very substantial ones above. –Austronesier (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is what exactly? Do you object to the footnotes? You yourself said you have no objection. Bogazicili (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili This excerpt in no way supports your claim. In fact it draws the same distinction between the ethnic and civic-national definitions of "Turk" that I did. Nowhere in this source is the "Turkish" part of the "Turkish Kurd" is an ethnicity; in fact it points out how it is otherwise: Therefore someone like Hikmet Çetin would consider himself an ethnic Kurd of Turkish nationality (citizenship). See how the distinction is being made? There is a way in which people identify their roots and/or cultural affiliations (which is called ethnicity in this text, and can also include multiplicity), and their citizenship (which is called nationality).

I understand that you are trying to capture a complexity here; some people identify with two ethnic identities as well. However, Hikmet Çetin is not one of these people; he is ethnically just a Kurd, and by nationality a Turk. That is not the same as multiple parts of a family identifying themselves ethnically as Turks or Kurds. Uness232 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's indeed the point. The ethnic and civic-national definitions of "Turk". Now if you just say 70-75% Turk, 20% Kurd in the infobox, without any footnotes or qualifiers such as "ethnic Turk", how accurate and complete were you? Bogazicili (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Very, considering the section is called "ethnic groups", not "demographics"; though one concise footnote can be added to the section about the two definitions of Turk if deemed strictly necessary. You do not seem to understand that ethnic group refers specifically to people's sense of ethnic belonging; a "Kurd of Turkish nationality/Turkish Kurd" is, in the context of an "ethnic groups" section, a Kurd. And indeed some people might define themselves as both a Turk and a Kurd, and mean both in an ethnic sense, but you can not measure that with citizenship data. Uness232 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

We can also add a nationality field like Spain. Right now the infobox is just giving the ethnic definition of "Turk", and ignoring the "civic-national" definition as you called it. I recently realised nationality was also an option in country infobox. They also completely ignored ethnicity in Spain article, even though there is Catalan independence movement. Bogazicili (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly!!!! This is an ethnicity parameter not a nationality parameter, which is what I, Uness232, and Austronesier have been trying to get you to understand for hours. The only relevance the info you want to put in is the little used nationality parameter. (France is a rare example). But there is no pint adding yet more clutter to the box so I'm against that. It's an incredibly uninteresting parameter and little used for good reason. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I had already said if I could create a custom parameter, I would have renamed it ethnicity/citizenship. What you fail to understand "for hours" is just what I said. Giving the ethnic definition of "Turk" while ignoring the "civic-national" definition of "Turk" in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about ignoring it. It's about not needing it there. –Austronesier (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This has become boring and too time consuming. Just trying to assess if we need Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Uness232, DeCausa, Austronesier, do you object to 1) footnotes removed by Austronesier [19] being added back? 2) object to saying "ethnic Turk", "ethnic Kurd" "other ethnic backgrounds" in the infobox, where it currently says Turk, Kurd, others? Bogazicili (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral on 1, I oppose 2 (i.e. I would want the terms Turk, Kurd etc. to stay as is). Uness232 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want something "boring and too time consuming", then Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is it. Add perfunctory, and you'll have the full definition :)

@DeCausa at some exasperated moment above already has granted you "ethnic Turk", "ethnic Kurd" etc. OTOH, I think it looks silly under "Ethnic groups".

Another point is however the applicability of "ethnicity" to the entire population of Turkey. Many Turks that are not of non-Turkish ethnic background do not self-identify in ethnic terms. They mostly self-identify as Turkish by nationality alone; ethnicity is for the "other", so to speak. This is not Turkey-specific, but also applies to many other countries like Germany, Morocco (see discussion there about the proper ethnic labelling of the non-Berber majority population) or Japan. Most reliable sources use the "ethnicity" label for miniorites, but rarely for the "Turkish Turkish" majority. It is not a coincidence that in many articles, we find CIA factbook as the only source for the ethnic composition of countries. Better sources address this complex matter in a different way. Instances of the term "ethnic Turks" in reliable sources mostly appear in the context of Turkish minorities outside of Turkey. –Austronesier (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Can you answer to 1 and 2 similar to Uness232? You made a revert, but you refuse to answer simple questions. "Ethnic Turk" is used in the sources I have btw. Bogazicili (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

My answers don't meet your expectations or don't come in the shape you want to have them; you should accept that. Calling this "refus[ing] to answer simple questions" is very much your perspecitve.

Repetition is boring and time consuming, but here we go: 1. oppose the note in "Ethnic groups" in the infobox (for reasons stated above), but weak oppose the note in "Population"; 2. oppose for reasons stated above. –Austronesier (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Great thanks. Conciseness is appreciated in talk pages Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Bogazicili (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a request in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:1AM situation. Where I'm on this: (1) I'm now opposed to your footnote. Apart from anything else it's too reliant on WP:PRIMARY. I have a counter-proposal as a footnote, which is as follows: Turkish law does not recognise minority ethnicities. All Turkish citizens are deemed to have the legal status of "Turk", which is not considered to indicate membership of an ethnic grouping This would be cited to Bayir, Derya (2016). Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 9781317095804. (2) I'm opposed to add the word "ethnic" being add to each of the groupings. It's unnecessary and redundant as the heading of the parameter is "Ethnic groups". DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: anticipating a "friendly" reminder by @Bogazicili: what's your take on the note in "Population"? Oh, and I have rejected to continue at DRN, 1) because it's 1AM situation, and 2) because I don't see that the current handling of DRNs is done in an acceptable way. I haven't seen a place in WP where editors are treated more condescendingly. –Austronesier (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Here's a secondary source:

Heper, M. (2007). The State and Kurds in Turkey. p. 91

"On the other hand, the 1924 Constitution took the Turkish nation as an entity made up of all disparate elements, that is, both ethnic Turks and nonethnic Turks as well as both Muslim Turks and non-Muslim Turks. Initially, some deputies met with consternation the Article 88, which read, ‘The people of Turkey, regardless of their religion and race, are Turks’. One such deputy, Celal Nuri from Gelibolu, expressed his concerns as follows: ‘We formerly used the adjective “Ottoman”, and this applied to all the people.. Now we are deleting it. … All the people of Turkey are not Turkish and Muslim. What shall we call these? If we do use the adjective “Turkish” not in respect to them, how else can we refer to them?’ As a response to this query, it was suggested that from the point of view of citizenship, all of the people were going to be considered as Turks. This formulation was adopted, and the draft Article 88 was amended to read, ‘The people of Turkey, regardless of religion and race, are Turks as regards citizenship’.46 The makers of the 1961 and 1982 Constitutions, too, adopted this formulation."

Bogazicili (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. I've already given you the secondary source I'm proposing to be used and the text that should go with it. Can you address that first please. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your text is incorrect. There are official minorities recognized. Bogazicili (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If that were the case (in the context of ethnic groups), then there would be no need for a footnote at all. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The footnote and qualifiers is there because you were against adding nationality field like in Spain or France.

Recognized minorities are already in the article and seems well sourced: "According to the Constitutional Court, there are only four officially recognized minorities in Turkey: the three "non-Muslim" minorities recognized in the Treaty of Lausanne (Armenians, Greeks, and Jews) and the Bulgarians," Bogazicili (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your statement that the "footnote and qualifiers is there because you were against adding nationality field" is patently untrue. You were pushing both well before you raised or even became aware of the nationality parameter. The Lausanne minorities are a complicated issue - the recognition is arguably about religion etc. But see my broader response below. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I support DeCausa's note. It covers the citizenship aspect, but its focus is explicitly on ethnicity and the way it is official handled in Turkey. –Austronesier (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my footnote proposal. On reflection, the Turkish state's attitude to the recognition of ethnic minorities is far too complicated to cover in a footnote. See for example Prof Arndt Künnecke's paper here on the complexities of the issue. That was 2013, and it's got even more idiosyncratic since then with some of the developments on the attitude to the Kurds. It needs an article to cover it not a footnote - and our Minorities in Turkey does a poor job of it as far as I can see. The Infobox needs to stick to simple positions. The RS given a consistent view of the ethnic groups of Turkey which is what we have in the Infobox. The twists and turns of the Turkish legal and governmental position is too idiosyncratic and too much of an outlier to attempt to address in the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, complexity is a good reason for treating things not as infobox matter. Lack of robustness of data is another one. How consistient really are RS about figures for ethnic minorites? The only consistency I can find is that all good sources agree that most ethnic figures are based on "intuitive guesses" (per Kirisci & Winrow (2013), The Kurdish Question and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict). However, the entry for Kurds (19%) based on CIA factbook feigns a precision that is in sharp constrast to what reliable scholarly sources say. I don't want to remove the ethnic composition from the infobox, but this is actually a clear case of {{bcn}}. –Austronesier (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable number but I doubt they have that precision. Even some publicly available data is incorrect in the The World Factbook by the way, such as fertility rate. Bogazicili (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2024

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

---

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

 Done Lionel Cristiano^? 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Citation format for books and long reports

Anyone minds using short inline citation format for books and long reports with {{cite book}} and {{cite report}} templates? Recently, I seem to be the one adding most of these type of sources. Bogazicili (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also {{cite encyclopedia}} ones. Bogazicili (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

University

Galatasaray University

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

Also, this university is a public university. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Please could you provide me a universal ranking that shows this university in the top 5 for Turkey. It is not even in the top 10 in any ranking. Istanbul University got 2 Nobel Prize winner alumni. You removed that one and added this instead? You need to clearly specify why this university is more significant than Istanbul University Metuboy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, only you did. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The page has way too many images already, the added value of that one is nil, and your claims about it were false (not the best in Turkey, not one of the best in Europe). I see no good reason to include this, it isn't an essential element of Turkey (it's not as if we hide the fact that the country has good universities). Fram (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

3 university pictures are not too many, they do not need to be deleted. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you on that. This isn't Education in Turkey. There are only three paragraphs here about education in the country, only two about universities. Why do we need three photos to illustrate summary material on the subject? For the sake of contrast, United States, Germany, and China have one university photo each. Largoplazo (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If it is to be deleted, another university should be deleted because Galatasaray University > all Lionel Cristiano^? 10:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this hasn't anything to with you support Galatasaray football club. Beshogur (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand u because u have never seen such a beautiful school in ur life. Lionel Cristiano^? 12:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

? Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an excellent university by the sea and the language of instruction is French. That's why I added it. Lionel Cristiano^? 15:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2024

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

---

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

"Türkiye" is not the country's name in the English language. To answer your questions, in order:

• See the discussion above.
• There is no deal. This is the English language Wikipedia. In English, the WP:COMMONNAME of the country is "Turkey".
• Yes.

Bazza 7 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Infobox: Establishment

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

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

and added Rise of to the Ottoman Empire point

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

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

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

PS: maybe having a Conquest of Constantinople and an Occupation of Istanbul points give a simple chronological overview structure. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is to much bloated and spammed if we add all these "established dates". Shadow4dark (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but e.g. the same part of the China article has also 8 points. But hey as a compromise how about having the Ottoman empire point link to the article of Rise of the Ottoman Empire and call it "Formation of the Ottoman Empire". Nsae Comp (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not meant to be a complete short chronology, it is meant to be a quick entry noting the date of establishment. CMD (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I agree "complete" is illusionary when you want to give a short introduction. But what I did mean is to have a structure of that section of the infobox that gives a clear idea of the establishment. So with other words: you can either start with the date of the formation of the Republic or mention the main root of the Ottoman Empire not just its formation, particularly because Turkey understands it self as state of the Turks and not the Ottomans, and what better way than by mentioning the beys as first point. PS: the argument about the Occupation of Instanbul is a second one to consider. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Anatolia was started to be called "Turchia" at the end of 12th century. So that's something we can consider. Bogazicili (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

name of the country

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

---

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

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

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

maybe there is sth wrong with the guideline then. this country officially changes its name and popular online platforms use the new name. if a person changes their name, all official content about them changes too, no matter how common was the previous name, all common things come to an end one day قیام (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

When the new name is commonly used, Wikipedia will follow suit. That is the COMMONNAME policy linked above. You could open an RfC on that page in an attempt to change that policy (I don't think it will succeed, but it's an option). But it is not a matter for this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Making that argument to me doesn't change anything here. We go by community guidelines, and only a community process will change it. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Too much emphasis on the Ottoman Empire in the lede

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

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

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

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