Jump to content

Talk:Turkey/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Enough with the bs WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments

All right, I've had enough pretending and beating around the bush, so I will call it out as it is: The calls for removing the Armenian Genocide picture is nothing more than an extreme case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of some users. This can be seen from the arguments for removing the picture, which are entirely specious and are just a cover for WP:JDL. Specifically:

  • "There are too many pictures in the section" - demonstrably false, there is plenty of room, even with the Genocide pic. No image sandwiching of any kind. This argument is simply absurd.
  • "The image is too graphic" - Wikipedia is not censored. We have far more graphic images throughout the encyclopedia
  • "The events occurred before the founding of modern Turkey" - Does the history of Turkey begin in 1923? Is 1923 like the Big Bang?
  • "The image depicts something that took place outside the borders of modern Turkey - see above.
  • "The Genocide is amply discussed in the text, hence the image is too much" - This is actually and argument for including the image, per WP:DUE.
  • "What about Germany? There is no picture of the Holocaust in the article on Germany" - textbook whataboutism
  • "It wasn't genocide" - i.e. straight up denial, e.g. such as this [1].
  • "The picture is offensive" - i.e. straight up WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

These arguments are on the level of "the dog ate my homework" type of excuse. Nothing more than a bad disguise for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am also concerned that if the picture is removed, such arguments will be used to completely remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide from the article, as the same arguments can be recycled for the same purpose.

On the other hand, there are very powerful arguments in favor of keeping the image:

  • The Armenian Genocide is a seminal event in Turkish history. It is foundational to modern Turkey, the borders of which would likely have been quite different had it not occurred.
  • The Armenian Genocide is also a seminal event in world history, as the first modern genocide, for which the word "genocide" was in fact coined.
  • The Armenian Genocide still resonates today, due to the vociferous denial of Turkey. As a result, it is still very much a "living issue".
  • The Armenian Genocide is mentioned in the text, hence an image to illustrate it WP:DUE.
  • The image used is a Featured Image, the highest quality of image on wikipedia.
  • The image has been there for a very long time, demonstrating consensus among the wikipedia community. It can only be removed through new consensus, which so far is very unlikely.

For the above reasons, I strongly oppose removing the picture, especially on such flimsy grounds. Khirurg (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: We were in the process of establishing consensus on the discussion above but you started a new one. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building, especially the part about “Tendentious editing”. You starting a new discussion to establish consensus (even though the first discussion was still going on). That’s an obvious violation, see this:
“Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.“
You shouldn’t have started a new discussion. Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 07:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see that the above discussion was anywhere near to forming any consensus. Having said that, there is probably not much hope of this second discussion leading anywhere nearer a consensus. In my opinion, it is now time to start a more formal process of dispute resolution. --T*U (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Darthkayak (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rodrigo Valequez: You've got some nerve accusing me of tendentious editing, starting with your totally bogus claims of "consensus". Khirurg (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Khirurg: I did not claim that consensus had been reached yet, but the discussion was going on. You started a new one, the users who commented above (the majority of them agreeing with the removal of the picture) will now have to comment again. And I’m not sure that they will. intentional or not, you caused us to get even further from consensus (which we weren’t even close to). Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rodrigo Valequez: You need not worry. It is quite normal that a talk page discussion splits up in several "sub-discussions" under different titles. Rest assured that whoever at some point will evaluate the discussion, will be fully able to see different sections of discussion in context. My worry is that some of the arguments are repeated again and again like a mantra and by the same editors so many times that it will be difficult to find anyone willing to wade through the walls of text in order to find substantial arguments. --T*U (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removing I was honestly not going to take a stance on this, but this response is too much. I get the strong feeling that the above editor is more interested in pushing a POV rather than improving the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
So you want to remove the picture out of spite? Nice going. Khirurg (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removing. The section is specifically talking about the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian Genocide does not represent a major part of the history of Turkey. I find the picture of Mehmed V more relevant because he was an important figure during the end of the Ottoman Empire. There were other “genocides” commited by the Ottoman Empire at the time, so a picture of the Armenian Genocide wouldn’t provide enough coverage. Since we can’t add pictures of the 2 other genocides which were committed during the time period due to WP:DETAIL, removing the image is a better option than letting it stay. Including a picture of the three pashas is the best option because they were the ones who were most directly responsible for Turkey's entry into WWI, and for the Late Ottoman Genocides. Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 07:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
That may be one of the weirdest arguments I have seen: We should not show a picture connected to one genocide because there also were other genocides committed in the same period? Would you then be happy with a gallery of pictures covering multiple genocides? (Irony redacted!) --T*U (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I find the repeated statements that "the Armenian Genocide does not represent a major part of the history of Turkey" to be utterly baffling. I know of no historians or authors of reliable sources who would agree with that. If that's what you think, I think you might need to familiarize yourself with better sources. Comments like that are at best inappropriately revisionist.
Although I think their statements are inflammatory and there wasn't a need to start a new discussion, I do not think Khirurg is filibustering per se, as they bring up some previously unstated points which are worth addressing. Darthkayak (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Darthkayak:​ You’re partially right, the Armenian Genocide does represent a major part of Turkey’s history. But, as I’ve said before, there were 2 other genocides during the time period. The section is talking about the end of the Ottoman Empire, mainly the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Empires place in the first world war. All three genocides were organized by the three Pashas, and they were responsible for the Ottoman Empire‘s participation in the war. Since we can’t add 3 pictures of the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire and a picture which represents the Ottoman Empire participation in the war, adding a picture of the Three Pashas (as I’ve explained before, responsible for both of these actions) would be a better option. The reason we can’t add 4 images to the section is it wouldn’t qualify as a proper summary of the section in the main article, see WP:DETAIL. He had already stated most of the points user:Khirurg he wrote on this discussion. So, intentional or not he caused the comments supporting/disagreeing with my proposal to be “worthless” as this is the main discussion now (I’d like to remind you that most users were supporting the removal of the picture). So he somehow brought us even further from consensus, and I’m not sure how that’s possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Guys, the reason these arguments are so contorted and bizarre is because they are cover for WP:JDL, nothing more. Khirurg (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Khirurg: How many times do I have to explain my proposal has nothing to do with WP:JDL? Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 14:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Some historians don't think that "genocide" is actually the correct definition for the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915–1916. "Ethnic cleansing" is in fact a more accurate definition for what happened (Eastern Anatolia was cleansed from its third largest ethnic group, the Armenians, through forced displacement). The large number of deaths from thirst, starvation and disease (at least 300,000 people died according to Ottoman archives) is what puts this "ethnic cleansing" in the range of "genocide", as an end-result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@TR34Istanbul: Please, can you explain why you completely ignore the messages I have given you in your talk page about signing your talk page postings. Signing is not optional. This is starting to become annoying. See WP:SIGN. --T*U (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Include - per Khirurg. The AG is relevant and so is a picture of it. Calls for removal have been made by an apparent WP:JDLI, others simply due to spite. Unfortunate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Support inclusion Per Khirurg.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Aleppo is in Syria, not Turkey. A very simple, basic fact which is not too difficult to understand. The Tehcir Law deportations took place between 1915-1916, in the Ottoman Empire. The Republic of Turkey was established in 1923.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Armenian civilians, escorted by Ottoman soldiers, marched through Harput (Kharpert) to a prison in nearby Mezireh (present-day Elâzığ), April 1915
This argument is pathetic in so many different ways. For one, Aleppo was part of the Ottoman Empire and that section is devoted to it. Two, you act as if the Armenian Genocide only happened in Aleppo. It didn't. Much of these deportees were from cities and villages where modern Turkey is located (i.e. Edirne, Sivas, Harput, Kayseri, and etc.). Three, if we are to talk about only what happened within modern Turkey's borders, then we'd have to delete large amounts of content pertaining to the Venetian wars or the Arab revolt, after all, those didn't happen within today's borders with Turkey either. And since this is your best and only argument, then I'm sure you'd totally be fine with changing it up with a picture of the deportations of the Harput Armenians during the AG. I'm sure you'd be okay with this since you are not arguing against this picture for WP:JDLI reasons, right? Thought so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: I don’t understand if you’re only addressing user:TR34Istanbul’s argument or you’re addressing all of our arguments (“all of our” as in the users who support the removal of the image). Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 18:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@TR34Istanbul: This is starting to look like pure disruption. You have had two messages in your talk page and one "ping" on this talk page during the last two days, asking you to follow the guideline WP:SIGN. Signing is not optional, it is a duty for all editors in order to show other editors who is saying what. When you do not sign, other editors will have to look up the edit history in order to know with whom they are discussing. To avoid that problem, someone (in this case me) has to "help" you by adding an "unsigned" template to your posting. Now I am fed up. Please, please, please sign your postings. It is quite easy. I learned it after one message. --T*U (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral on AG image, remove the dead child. WP:OM does apply here and it's not a simple case of "oh Wikipedia is not censored". Specifically relevant: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. [...] Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." I certainly do not think that removing the photo of the dead child would cause the article to be less informative, relevant or accurate. And I do think that including the image of a dead child in something as basic as a country article would violate the principle of "least astonishment". One would expect this in a genocide article but it is a bit over the top for a country article. I don't have a strong opinion about including an AG image, but if one is to be included, please use the deportation of the Harput Armenians, an image that is arguably more informative about the nature of what happened. --GGT (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that was actually a good reason the remove the image. One that I probably couldn’t come up with. Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Another user who has been canvassed over to this discussion. Vote stacking at its most blatantly obvious. Despicable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You are wrong and digressing from the original point of this thread. I already made my comment before that message (on 29 January 2020) so i'm not going to repeat myself again. Gökhan 14:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This account has made four edits over the past three years. He made two edits this year. One in January and the other today. Both related to the AG picture. In this edit he failed to disclose the canvassing by the now indeffed canvasser. Dr. K. 02:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that's the weakest "argument" I have ever seen, and that's saying a lot. Khirurg (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The entire thread is proving itself to be a sham. Socks, canvassed accounts, and JDLI excuses abound. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is about turkey not neo ottoman empire or ottoman empire. Aleppo is not part of turkey.Shadow4dark (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You can deny this all you want, but, face it, it is part of Turkey's history. It is part of the history of the Turkish people. Your history is not confined to the borders of the current state. Dr. K. 19:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A canvased account even berated an admin for reverting the canvassing on his talkpage, telling him "not to interfere". The same account came to this article, 7 hours after the canvassing, started the picture removal edit war and removed the picture. The article eventually got protected without the picture in it. I know that for every protection there will be cries of the WP:WRONGVERSION, but in this case of blatant canvassing, it shows that canvassing does pay. Dr. K. 19:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion The main reason is factual. The picture depicts a very significant historical event, and is informative to the reader. In addition, virtually every 'remove' vote above comes from users who never engaged with this article before and have simply been canvassed here to vote. In addition, the user who started the edit war and canvassed people here has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. Jeppiz (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I kind of completely disagree on this argument. It just wasn't anywhere near informative. Gökhan 23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
You are perfectly free to disagree, we all have the right to our opinions. Me, for example, I find it strange that with no edits in 2019, and no edits in 2020, you turn up in this discussion to support a banned sock-puppet. Jeppiz (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removing (WP:BALASP). The AG is a subject inside a larger subject, thus being second or even third-degree removed from the article. What is the larger subject? One could think of "the fall of Ottoman Empire"; or aspect of the Russo-Turkish war; or even aspect of WW1 for that matter.
(On a personal note: I don't really understand the problem. It's not like the AG isn't mentioned in the article. Are you guys indirectly admitting to only looking at the pictures in a article, like a (Personal attack removed)? I find it scary this persistence to MUST include or MUST remove the picture. This "I can sleep better if Wikipedia is 100% exactly like I want" attitude genuinely scares me). Randam (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, yeah, ok. Taunts and condescension from an account with less than 100 edits and the creator of the AK Party Youth article. [2] [3]. Khirurg (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Does akparty youth article have anything to do with this discussion? Gökhan 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't like AK Party government but your personal attacks should stop, everyone can have their own views. Beshogur (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
You have disqualified yourself. Not only am I not interested in your ad hominem attacks, you also do not reflect reality by saying I have less than 100 edits while the counter shows 1468 edits currently, with 210 edits last 365 days. And yes, I created that one article, so what? I create what is missing on Wikipedia. If you're saying my creations are wrong, then let's talk on that page. I'm always open for people correcting me, I'm only a human; I don't claim to know the absolute truth. We live in a world with different views. Assume good faith. We are all Wikipedians. Randam (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Assume good faith. We are all Wikipedians. These are some good words. It would be nice if you followed them yourself. Dr. K. 17:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Added de facto emblem 124.80.238.152 (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Turkey Europe and Asia. Middle East is wrong as Canada is not in the USA. It is in America {

{edit semi-protected|Turkey|answered=no}} 

Essekoglou (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Turkey is in Europe and Asia. Not in Middle East only, but also Eastern Europe Essekoglou (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

National emblem

While no official coat of arms it's specified, National emblem of Turkey is de facto used on passports, Turkish identity cards and at the diplomatic missions of Turkey. Why should we not use it in the info box? The article in Turkish (also other languages), for example, did. Parameter "symbol_type" allows to chose a different name from "Coat of arms". Lone Internaut (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Population of largest cities

There seems to be confusion with the population of the province. For example are there really over 1 million people in the CITY of Aydın? Also, including the hundreds, tens and units digits makes them hard to read. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Dominant party system?

Is it worth considering changing the infobox to say "unitary dominant party presidential republic"? The AKP has been in power since 2007 and looks like it will be for a long time yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

On dominant-party system article, it says AKP is one of the examples, with sources. So yes, maybe it is the case. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Must be a joke right? It has not even the majority in TBMM. Beshogur (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hm. It's still the most powerful party which dominates the country political life since more than 10 years. Lone Internaut (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
So what? The article you linked is an orginal research. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The article I linked has nothing to do with it. I only took a quick check on it, I do not wanna use it necessarily as a source. Still, defining the AKP as the dominant party of Turkey is nor a joke nor technically wrong. Lone Internaut (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
So you are going to call all countries with one party government as "dominant party state"? Beshogur (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
....I do not understand from what you assumed this. A "dominant party state" happens basically when there is no rotation of power among parties and/or politicians for a long time in a country's political life. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It depends on the definition. If the definition of a dominant party system is what we read in the lead of our Wikipedia article, Turkey is indeed a dominant party system. We had the same situation in Italy, which after WWII has been ruled for more than 40 years by the Democrazia Cristiana and several minor parties, and in Germany, since the CDU has been ruling since 2005. However, I don't think that this categorization makes sense, since this is not a form of government, and the definition depends also on the future, which is really silly (none can predict when AKP will lose the power, also because since two years it rules in a coalition). A good definition for a dominant party system could be is a system where a party is constitutionally privileged with respect to the others, or at least where the result of the elections is predetermined, and this is not (yet) the case for Turkey. After having read the Talk page of the Dominant Party System article, I think that its definition is not univocal, and that this concept is often misused. Alex2006 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If we use the second definition (constitutionally privileged party) then I agree to not use the definition in Turkey article. But if we apply this logic on Turkey, we should apply it to South Africa too and others alike. Since there isn't really consensus of the project on what "dominant party state" really represents, we could end up with the same situation in the future. We cannot solve the thing here. Lone Internaut (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Alex2006 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The current government does not meet the criteria mentioned in the article. It should even be deleted from that page. (1) It speaks of "one-party dominant system", but the AKP is now in a coalition with MHP, or an alliance how they would like to call it. Thus dominance is over. (2) It speaks of "future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future." With the biggest cities lost by the AKP in the recent local elections, it's not so unlikely anymore.Randam (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Secular state in infobox

Why is this in infobox? Almost all states in wikipedia does not have this. And if i look edits history this is added by a sock TR34Istanbul Shadow4dark (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

37.238.196.7 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Refugees and Immigrants

Hello I would like to contribute to this article by providing some information for the Demographics section, especially the immigrant subsection.

The African community living inside Turkey is not really known and not a lot of information is shared about them, I stumbled upon this when a Senegalese man tried to sell me a watch in Istanbul during a trip in 2019, to my suprise Istanbul was not a monoethnic city as I would expect from a city in the Balkans/Eastern Europe as seeing people of color was common in the Eastern European side of the city. I found an article about this and the estimated amount of colored people excluding Afro-Turks in Istanbul is around 150.000 (https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/african-businesspeople-earn-success-in-istanbul-132076).

Something stuck in my mind from a while ago was a video about Uyghur/Chinese people that recently fled to Turkey. In the wiki thread about 'Uyghurs' their population in Turkey was around 60.000

I am sure there are a lot of Iraqi's, Iranians, Afghans and people from the Indian subcontinent(Bangladeshi's, Pakistani's) that ended up settling in Turkey after the EU-Turkey deal to stop migration to Europe. The Iranian diaspora in Turkey alone counts as high as 500.000.


I hope I provided some usefull information for this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:3D02:B700:1C86:8857:B6B0:D8A8 (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting but I suggest you add the info to Demographics of Turkey as this article is too detailed already.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

Turkey is not a country in the Middle East . It is a European country that stretches into Asia . Turkey has always been classified as European. 102.182.212.29 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 13:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Akkadians and Thracians

Ancient Akkadians, who lived in parts of Mesopotamia and Anatolia and Thracians, who lived in Thrace were important historically so I mentioned them in the lede. Khestwol (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

adding photo

can someone add the photo of the vakıfbank women volleyball team, which became 2018 world champion, to represent women better. (File:Vakifbanksk2018cl.jpg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.196.84.60 (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Kurdish name

S4D, Kurdish is the second-most spoken language in the Republic of Turkey. Why blank the Kurdish name for Turkey from the article? Konli17 (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Because it is not official? Even it is, you don't see Tatar name on Russia, Azerbaijani name on Iran. Beshogur (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Kurdish names are never official in Turkey, but that doesn't stop us using them. Konli17 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see spanish name of united states of america. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not a very brotherly attitude. Spanish is a migrant language in the US. Kurds and Turks have shared Anatolia for centuries. Konli17 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Chiming in, I believe only the national/official language of the government should be used. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Spanish has been spoken in what is now the continental United States since at least 1565 in Saint Augustine, Florida. To this day, cities and towns in California carry the names of centuries-old Spanish missions (e.g. Reina de Los Angeles and San Francisco de Asís.) Just plain Bill (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Whats your point exactly Bill? when I go to the United States page I don’t see the Spanish name of the country, cities and towns in the eastern part of Turkey also have names in Laz, Kurdish, Georgian and Armenian, see Diyarbakır and Artvin for example, I suggest we don’t feed this troll. Redman19 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Spanish is not a "migrant language" in the USA, as shown by place names and other demographic features. To Spanish speakers, "United States" could just as easily mean Mexico (los Estados Unidos Mexicanos). I could say more, but am done stirring this pot for now. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you should take your trolling elsewhere mate, Wikipedia isn't your personal playground. Redman19 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

I request that the photo about the Armenian genocide be removed. Although France and Belgium massacred all of Africa, there is nothing about the genocide from wikipedia pages. Also the Armenian genocide was in 1915. Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923. Sametscofield (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Further, Wikipedia is not censored. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Also, you are not looking enough here it is. PyroFloe (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

updates

Can someone update the figures in 'infrastructure' section. Also there is a solid healthcare tourism in Turkey especially in cosmetic surgery, it should also be added to the 'healthcare' section.46.196.85.168 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Color of templates

I didn't know where to write this, so I do it here. The color of Turkey related templates have now mostly the color turquoise or red and white. It's mostly done by user:Torshavn1337 (who by the way was blocked a month ago).

I would suggest to have all the templates reverted to the default color. I recommend not changing to unique colors when it doesn't add something significant and to be consistent with templates from other countries. What do you guys think? (In case of support for "revert", I hope somebody takes the time to revert it all). --Randam (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Continent

It is argued that Turkey is both in Asia and Europe. Although large parts of the country is technically located in Asia/Middle East, many Turks don’t identify with that notion specifically. Should we clarify the course of conflict in this article? Reinhearted (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah good idea man. You can even find some polls about it. Bet not a single Turkish identifies him/herself as 'Middle Eastern'.46.196.85.168 (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No one identifies him or herself in Turkey because there is no need. Turkey has Not got an inch of soil in Middle East. Geographically and Politically Turkey is an European Country although it has land on both continents: Asia and Europe. Glsb (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

National anthem played too slow

Please compare the national anthem in the Turkish version of this article, there it is played in the correct speed, here it is played much too slow! Thank you for your consideration. --2003:F5:CF01:4160:3C5E:EE21:4C85:2D81 (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Why Atatürk is removed from the lede? War of Independence was initiated by Atatürk and since he started the war, founded the republic, made the reforms and created the modern Turkey, i really think he should be mentioned.

And why was the date of the foundation of the republic (29 Oct 1923), which obviously has much importance than the Treaty of Lausanne, is removed from the infobox? I think sequence should be as 1-Ottoman Foundation 2-War of Indepence 3-Foundation of TBMM 4-Declaration of the Rep.46.196.85.168 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The date 29 October 1923 is still in the infobox. Ruslik_Zero 15:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Update

Please update the Science and technology section please add the Turkish Space Agency logo national space program of turkey.

https://tua.gov.tr/en

Will do Cengizsogutlu (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

POV edit

I undid this [4], on the grounds that it is a) cherry-picked for effect (we could just as easily add images that highlight an opposite POV), b) poor quality image, c) the section is already heavily cluttered with images, and d) the edit summary and caption indicate a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

88.230.1.176 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkey is a regional power and a newly industrailed country , ranking very high in the Human Devolopment İndex, with a geopolitically strategic location .

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021 (2)

Zaharhazar (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkey is a regional power and a newly industrailed country,ranking very high in the Human Devolopment İndex,with a s geopolitically strategic location.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Name

The Etymology section claims that the Turkish name Türkiye "was adopted in 1923 under the influence of European usage". If that's the case, then what did Turks call Turkey before that date? For some reason I've been unable to find an answer to this very simple question. Zacwill (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That's because it's false. The Turkish name is not adopted under the influence of European usage - that is a citation from a non-expert source and makes a typically Eurocentric assumption of the period in which it was written. The word has an Arabic origin and using the feminine grammatical ending in this case meaning "of the" (-iyye in Ottoman Turkish). The Ottomans never called themselves Turks or their empire the Ottoman Empire - the state was called the Devlet-i Aliyye, or "Sublime (or exalted) State" (in the later period often Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmaniyye, "Sublime Ottoman State") and the territory it ruled "Memâlik-i Mahrusa-i Şahane" ("Protected Imperial Domains". Turkish-speakers might note that memâlik is the Ottoman (Arabic-derived) plural of memleket.[country/native region/homeland/domain]) Turkiyya was a word applied to any regime run by Turks, e.g. Egypt until the late 19th c, or the Sudan (as it was perceived by the native population) until the Mahdist revolt. Actually, it's a little bit ironic that Ataturk used a name that's Ottoman Turkish. If it were modern Turkish, the name of the country would be "Türk Cumhuriyeti", but the name was applied before the language reform and it would be an ordeal to change it.

Anyway, the word Turkiyya -> Turkiye (two 'y's v. one is interchangeable in Latin script for complicated but unimportant reasons) is older than the Ottoman Empire, but so is Arabic, and so is the Turkish presence in the Middle East, so European usage is derived from Arabic & Persian usage, as is the Turkish usage. --Abdul Hadi Pasha (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted the sentence Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit reques31 on 8 June 2021

37.130.120.161 (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops! Your request was left blank. Unfortunately, no information was passed through to our editors. Please resubmit this edit request in a "change X to Y" format. If this request was submitted in error, you may safely ignore this message. TGHL ↗ 🍁 16:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Culture name spam

Think its best to remove name spamming in culture section. --Moxy- 23:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma Shadow4dark (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree ..... just noticed the genocide edit....... bigger concern than just names I see. Should we wade through all the edits with no edit summaries...or do we just restore...lot of work here to review. Moxy- 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why he is not blocked yet.Shadow4dark (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I have asked for the page to be lockedup so we can review all the edits but we have no edit summaries....thus this will take some time but we can do it here on the talk page.Moxy- 00:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
After seeing a few rfc that we've had here full of now block users I think we need a real full review of what's going on here. Going to invite a few country heavy article editors to review what's been going on.. will post a statement on their Pages tomorrow.Moxy- 03:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Hi Team,

Hope you are doing well and keeping safe during these times.

Turkey is categorized as a Middle East country at the moment. I think this creates a confusion in people’s minds and leads it to be perceived as an Arabic countries.

I’m not so sure if it’s possible to change it to Euroasian or Asian country to make it more accurate. I’m also comparing it for example to Azerbaijan which is neighbor of Turkey on the east border and sharing more or less the same parallel coordinates. As a result, it appears being categorized as “Country”.

Hope my change request could be found right and be processed.

Cheers! 2A00:F41:3869:B830:E162:4D68:F9CE:F1FB (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkish space agency

The Turkish space agency’s logo was removed in socket and technology section please re add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.95.54 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


Replace Portion of Lead

"Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his party, the AKP, has often been described as populist, conservative and authoritarian" should be replaced with "...Islamist and authoritarian" because it is comparing them to Ataturk, who was already populist (one of the six arrows), and conservative is very vague considering in comparison to the rest of the world, the entire Middle East is "conservative," but Islamist describes more specific ideologies and actions, such as Erdogan turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque. My edit was reverted by Beshogur but I would like to reinstate it. Bill Williams (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Geography

Turkey is and always been an Eurasian Country which is also aTranscontinental Country. It is also a Secular Country as always. The information and descriptions about Turkey has been altered and mostly false and misleading. The information given in each category including culture is manipulated. The attack could be Political or Hate but in the end nothing goes Further then the Truth. And the truth is %85 of the information you are reading about Turkey in Wikipedia is made up by some dyslexic story teller. Realisticandpositive (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Turkey

It is a transcontinental country. It is not in Middle East. It is Eurasian Country. The heading that comes up when you type Turkey is utterly shocking and comically wrong. It can read as: Turkey A Transcontinental Country Or Turkey A Eurasian Country This is the geographically and mathematically correct definition of the Country.

And it's a Secular Country and always will be no matter who tries to against will fail as Secularism is Turkish, is Turk, is our Nature . Realisticandpositive (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Please add the sentence below between the sentences " In an effort to consolidate the weakening empire, Mahmud II started a period of modernisation in the early 19th century" and "The 1913 coup d'état effectively put the country under the control of the Three Pashas..." in the first section of the article.

The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 brought limitations to the authority of the Ottoman Sultan, allocating power to the Ottoman Parliament, and ushered the empire into a multi-party period.

The edited version would be: In an effort to consolidate the weakening empire, Mahmud II started a period of modernisation in the early 19th century.[19] The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 brought limitations to the authority of the Ottoman Sultan, allocating power to the Ottoman Parliament, and ushered the empire into a multi-party period. The 1913 coup d'état effectively put the country under the control of the Three Pashas, who were largely responsible for the Empire's entry into World War I in 1914. Ks2754 (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the red links are not helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Turkey (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Child soldiers implication

I included a section under Military, for Turkey being listed by the US for being implicated in the use of child soldiers, however user Loveisthebest1 keeps reverting my edit without providing a reason. I was advised to share here and gather consensus. If there are no objections or any changes/adjustments please feel free.

"In a 2021 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report by the United States Department of State Turkey has been implicated in using child soldiers by providing support to Sultan Murad Division which have been found to be recruiting minors in Syria and in addition also sending them to Libya to fight."

  • "U.S. adds Turkey to list of countries implicated in use of child soldiers". Reuters. 2021-07-01. Retrieved 2021-08-27.
  • "2021 Trafficking in Persons Report". United States Department of State. Retrieved 2021-08-27.
  • "US adds Turkey to list of countries using child soldiers - Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle East". www.al-monitor.com. Retrieved 2021-08-27.
  • "Report: Child soldiers deployed to Libya by Turkish-backed Syrian National Army - Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle East". www.al-monitor.com. Retrieved 2021-08-27.

@Beshogur: @Loveisthebest1: care to specify your issue with the above, as you both reverted? Beshogur you suggested I take it to the talk page.

TataofTata (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see reason(s) for these removals either, as the added content seems fairly sourced. Reverters, care to explain? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not one of the reverters, :-) but frankly speaking it seems to me that this information has little to do with this article, which is supposed to describe Turkey from a general point of view. In other words, here is a classic case of undue weight. however, this information deserves to appear on wikipedia: I would put it in a more specialised article, such as the one on the Turkish Armed Forces (history section). Cheers to everyone, reverters and patrollers, Alex2006 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Alex2006, I also thought to include it in Turkish Armed Forces however that page seems to be strictly speaking about the "Turkish Armed Forces" and the sources refer not to Turkey's military branch exclusively, but specifically Turkey so it kind of looked out of place and I still think it looks out of place there, however I do understand your point. TataofTata (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue is WP:DUE. There are hundreds of things about the country of Turkey that could be mentioned on this page, a claim about a group in Syria supported by Turkey is not important enough to be mentioned here. There is presumably some article relating to Turkey and the Syrian Civil War where it could be added. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A claim? Please refer to the relevant sources and articles to get a better understanding, to be repeating myself; this is about turkey being put on a U.S. list - they would not put a NATO ally for the first time just off a "claim", secondly yes hundreds of things can be mentioned here, but this is about minors being in war as child soldiers. That is kind of big thing. Also for example there is a thing about a Turk receiving a Nobel Chemistry Prize under Science and technology, that is not specifically about Turkey, but still seems to be included so whether positive or negative I think it being included is fine. So going back to topic, The United States is a main proponent on the world stage and their views carry weight. As the sources says Turkey has been added to a US list of countries implicated in the recruitment or use of child soldiers. I tried to be as neutral as possibly, in explaining how they were listed. As for how the US department works out the list. ″Every country in this report is placed on one of four tiers, as mandated by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). This placement is based not on the extent of a country's problem, but on the extent of government efforts to eliminate human trafficking.″ the resulting means ″States placed on this list are restricted from receiving certain types of security assistance and commercial licensing of military equipment.″' - TataofTata (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@TataofTata: none of the countries in US list has something about that issue in their pages, the reason you choose Turkey is pure pov pushing, showing your intentions. There is not sole proof for that either. Also wikipedia is not run by USA. Beshogur (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
So that's your reason? Me? If this kind of accusation had any validity it would mean there would be no negative content on Wikipedia regarding Turkey because every person who is remotely interested in the subject or has a field of interest would be gone. Look, I do not write the news and if you want to add the content also on other pages, feel free, I can't do everything and that does not mean I have intentions in fact I wanted to add it to Nato but again thought it to be unsuitable. Going after my credibility or making fallacy unexpected loops for me to jump over is not fair. You also literally erased out a discussion I raised on the talk page of Turkification and justified it by calling it "propaganda". Write only good things about Turkey, that's what you're telling me? TataofTata (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It's true what I said on Talk:Turkification, but that's not the issue here. You put a bunch of your own comment, which isn't related to the topic. None of the sources mentions Turkification. Beshogur (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Not relevant for this WP:SUMMARY article.....considering the statement is very unclear.Moxy- 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

Hello dear editors, tourism website for Turkey not online for almost 3 year => hometurkey.com. which is on external links section. new website is muze.gen.tr 95.70.132.241 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The link on [5] at "Turkish Tourism Portal" links to [6], so I'm going with this one. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Footnote on Emblem

I attempted to add the footnote stating "De facto only, as Turkey currently does not have any official coat of arms, seal or emblem" to the national emblem in the infobox, since that is clearly the facts on the matter, and it is misleading to simply have the supposed emblem without a footnote stating that it is the de facto and not official one, but Beshogur twice reverted me, stating "there's no emblem of Turkey" even though I said there is no official one but the infobox clearly has something in it, and then "discussed before." I would like to discuss this again, even if it has been previously mentioned. Bill Williams 20:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Who said this is de facto? The OR article? Turkish ministries do not even use those anymore. Using crescent and moon (because it's on the flag), doesn't make it an emblem. Also Turkey has no official motto, so you gonna put Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the People there because it's commonly used? Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Beshogur I think you misinterpret my intent. I did not put the emblem here, as I'm sure it has been there for years, I just noticed it and realized that factually speaking, Turkey does not have an emblem, so having that in the infobox above "emblem" is highly misleading. If you wish to remove it completely, then I would fully support that, but as long as it is in the infobox, it requires a footnote explaining that it is not the official emblem. Bill Williams 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bill Williams: My apologies. I didn't see the whole edit history. Thanks for your help. Beshogur (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
It's all good, I think you're right and the article would be better without it anyway. I had Turkey on my watchlist and noticed an editor who was trying to fix the issue, so I stepped in. Bill Williams 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

Kurdistan 62.201.242.36 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 20:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests seeking a change to Türkiye, December 2021 – January 2022

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2021

Change "Turkey" to "Türkiye" Source: https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-to-use-t%C3%BCrkiye-in-all-activities-to-strengthen-its-brand-52307 DrJuiceBoy (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: en.wiki generally uses the WP:Common name for its articles. CMD (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2021 (2)

Change "officially the Republic of Turkey" to "officially the Republic of Türkiye" in accordance with the recent name change: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-turkey-is-now-turkiye-and-why-that-matters-52602 184.147.109.215 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

See talk page above. Shadow4dark (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2021

Turkey has formally changed its English name to Turkiye 109.152.227.247 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

See talk page above. Shadow4dark (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Türkiye

Türkiye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.57.34 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

Hello. The original name of Turkey is changed from "Turkey" to "Turkiye" due to its official change. Changes need to be made to Wikipedia as well. Ashkanhasebi (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022 (2)

206.255.65.196 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkey changed its name to Turkiye

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022 (3) change name of article to Turkiye

Hebj (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022 (3)

Turkey's English name was changed to Turkiye. Probably just change all mentions of 'Turkey' to 'Turkiye' and maybe even add a paragraph about the change. Acorn5squash (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022 (4)

Change name to Turkiye 89.125.110.71 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022 (5)

Change Turkey to Turkiye Tyrone Johnson Deqarius (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Corinal (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Change the beginning of the lead from "Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Turkey" to "Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), also known as Türkiye, officially the Republic of Türkiye"

Previous consensus was to wait for an official submission to the UN, that has now occurred so the lead should be changed (similar to Ivory Coast)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkiye 2

Turkey officially changed its name to "Turkiye" and I wish to change this Turkic-Maryland (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

Turkey has official changed their English country name to Turkiye 2601:440:8580:AF70:1DFC:CC63:662:94B4 (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

154.127.6.93 (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sake Haas

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  melecie  t - 09:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong date

In this article you have the following sentence:

In January 2022, the country officially changed its English name to its Turkish name, Türkiye, to better reflect its heritage and avoid confusion with the turkey bird.[40]

The name change happened in December 2021 and TRT World posted two articles about this topic. First using "Türkiye", but later changing it to "Turkiye" without a diaeresis on the letter u. Not sure why they stopped using the ü. But since the second article, they have been consistently using "Turkiye" on their website and social media. So, they have been using this word in all of their articles since December 2021 and still continue to use it.

So, I'm not sure if Türkiye should be Turkiye in this sentence, but the source should be changed from MSN to TRT World. And the date also needs to be fixed from January 2022 to December 2021.

This source is the official announcement in Turkish. Resmî Gazete is the Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey. Or see page 27 of the full journal. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrUnoDosTres: UN still uses "Turkey". Beshogur (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur that is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. In the article under Name the date is wrong. January 2022 should be December 2021. How is what the UN calls Turkey/Türkiye relevant to that? And the source used is an opinion piece. Not an official source. I've also added the official source in Turkish. And TRT World is the closest English translation to that. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrUnoDosTres: Honestly I can't take Republic of Türkiye serious until Turkey admits this term to the United Nations. Also if you can find an article citing Resmi Gazete, then we can mention it below. We can't use Resmi Gazete per wp:primary. Beshogur (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

Türkiye officially changed their english name from Turkey to Türkiye and I believe the name of the wikipedia and mentions of the name of the country be changed to reflect this. Or at the very least put into brackets in the title. 68.193.44.145 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia is not subject to Turkey, and the Turkish regime can of course decide what name it wants to use in English, but cannot decide over the English language. 'I'm Türkiye becomes the common name in English, Wikipedia will reflect that. As of now, that is nowhere near being the case. Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Please watch your words. There's no "Turkish regime". Perhaps you meant government. Beshogur (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
While I agree with what Beshogur said, it can also be stated as the officially name (Republic of Türkiye). --Jelican9 (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

In the Geography section, please change the reference tag with the name "Unesco" to

<ref name="Unesco">{{cite web |url=https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/485 |title=Hierapolis-Pamukkale World Heritage Site |publisher=[[UNESCO World Heritage Centre]] |access-date=2022-01-17 }}</ref>

This is because the "Unesco" reference is never defined in the article, thus creating an error. The broken reference was added here with text from the article Pamukkale (this article has a reference with the name "Unesco"). ObserveOwl (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkey is not Türkiye

Per Turkish Constiution Turkey is still Turkey and not "Türkiye" [[7]] Shadow4dark (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


Name Change

Turkey has now changed its international name to Turkiye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.118.111 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No, they didn't. See above. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes they did. The Turkish Presidency Twitter account confirms this. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220118-turkey-to-register-at-the-un-with-new-name-turkiye/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.63.231 (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The name "Turkey" was used in many treaties during the Ottoman period

The definition in the Etymology section: "With the Treaty of Alexandropol signed by the Government of the Grand National Assembly with Armenia, the name of Turkey entered international documents for the first time" is entirely wrong. The Ottoman Empire was mentioned with the name Turkey in many international treaties during the Ottoman period. For example, see the full text of the Treaty of Berlin (1878). Similarly, Article XVI of the Treaty of Paris (1856), for example, also uses the name "Turkey" for defining the Ottoman Empire. Mercresis (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (page 348) in Ottoman Turkish makes no mention of "Turkey", calling the "Saltanat-i Seniye" (exalted sultanate). Not sure where the English translation came from, or the original document making such mention. Beshogur (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia (not Turkish Wikipedia) and we are talking about the name "Turkey" (not "Türkiye") being mentioned in the English language text of an international treaty. See the full official text (in English) of the Treaty of Berlin (1878). Mercresis (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
It is irrelevant what Etymology says. Once a countries name changes and this is officially communicated to the United Nations- that country's English name is what is recorded at the UN. This was also the case with the Republic of Macedonia which was officially changed to the Republic of Northern Macedonia after Greece caused a stink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.63.231 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkey has officially changed its name to Turkiye

Link: https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-to-use-t%C3%BCrkiye-in-all-activities-to-strengthen-its-brand-52307

It looks like Turkey really doesn't want to share its name with a bird. I think eventually we would need to change everything about Turkey to Turkiye, just like Kyiv and Myanmar. For the time being, I think we need to mention Turkey's new official name in the lede.

Other countries/territories on the watch list for name changes:

1. Cabo Verde

2. Cote d'Ivoire

3. Czechia

4. Gqeberha

5. Macao

120.16.55.132 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not even Daily Sabah cares about the name change as of now (every piece here says "Turkey"), so why should we give it undue prominence in the lede? –Austronesier (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Because it is an official name change. It takes time for people to adopt the new name, but I expect everything about Turkey will be gradually changed to Turkiye. For example, the official Turkish tourism website http://goturkey.com has recently rebranded its URL as http://goturkiye.com to reflect the name change. 120.16.55.132 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the circular dated 3 December 2021 and published on 4 December [8]. From the twitter account of Turkish MFA. The name "Republic of Turkey" was last used on a press release dated 5 December.(No. 407) "Republic of Türkiye" has been used for the press releases issued since 7 December.(No. 408). Therefore the name change was occurred in December 2021, not January 2022. --Mike Rohsopht (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME. According to the policies here, we use the name most commonly used in English sources. If Türkiye becomes the name commonly used by BBC, CNN, The Times, New York Times, etc., then Wikipedia will also start using. Wikipedia will not be first, nor among the first, to use it. We follow sources, we don't set precedents.Jeppiz (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean only British and American media matter while sources from other countries, including the official documents of the country concerned can be ingored? That is neocolonialism. 120.16.89.35 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it is not. This is English Wikipedia, one of its policies is use English, another is to use the name most often used in sources in English. I haven't come up with these policies, I'm just informing about them. If you want them changed, take it up with the Wikipedia community. Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but English is the official language of 67 sovereign states and 27 dependent territories. Why only mainstream British and American media are considered reliable sources while sources from other English-speaking countries are ignored? Furthermore, if the mainstream media of a non-English speaking country, especially the country concerned, publishes an article in English, why wouldn't it be treated as a reliable source? Enforcing opinions generated by mainstream British and American media in Wikipedia is a type of neocolonialism.
Sorry, I've decided to quit the Wikipedia project. 120.16.89.35 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Turkish Constiution does not use Türkiye [[9]] Shadow4dark (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That's because the translation was published before this name change. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, we could follow what we did for other countries and do an "also known as Turkiye" and such. While I don't think we will be calling it Turkiye instead of Turkey for a while, I also don't see why not to acknowledge the name change entirely. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 19:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. While it is not commonly used enough yet to justify using it for the entire page, it should be mentioned in the lede as the official English name for Turkey. The same is done the Czech Republic page even though Czechia is by no means a common name for the country in Englsih.--Kappasi (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Are there any sources to back up the claim it is "also" known as Türkiye? Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
A simple Google search shows many sources. Even the Turkish Presidency's Official English Twitter account made the change. See https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-turkiye-new-name-register-un-weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.63.231 (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkey vs. Türkiye--it's not spam or disruption

@User:Austronesier, you removed someone's latest effort at finding a middle ground over the Turkey/Türkiye debate. Let me point out that, contrary to your edit summary, the discussion here about that--however repetitive and inconclusive it is--is neither spam or disruptive. Throwing uncalled-for labels at people who disagree with you would tend only to convince them that YOU are the one who is being unreasonable. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. The notes below are not mine. I'm not getting into the substance of this debate yet. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I have moved them to the appropriate place. Kahastok talk 21:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The removal was correct. The aim here should not be to reach a "middle ground" if that middle ground conflicts with policies and guidelines.
There is no evidence that Turkey is "also known as" Turkiye by any significant number of English-speakers. Therefore policy would dictate that we cannot claim that Turkey is "also known as" Turkiye. Therefore policy would dictate that this is far too much weight to give to the notion that Turkiye is an English word.
Also, there are now 21 separate discussions on this talk page on Turkey vs Türkiye, including 8 separate discussions started within 24 hours (from 17:05 on 17 January 2022). It is not entirely unreasonable to describe this as disruptive spamming. Kahastok talk 21:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not Turkey or Türkiye is not my point or interest. Yes, there's a lot of arguing--people holding hard to one point or the other, as well as people trying to reasonably satisfy both sides. By definition, that is not spam. Another policy is, we assume good faith. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
If your point of interest is not the content of the article but behaviour, then it is better addressed in another forum rather than on this thread-filled talkpage. CMD (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not about disagreement. You will notice that next to well-argued and constructive requests like the one by @ImStevan above, we have numerous requests that completely ignore the ongoing discussion and which simply order us what to do. If this lack of willingness to engage in a discussion that is in plain sight occurs multiple times within 24 hours, the outcome is disruptive, even if each request is made in good faith (disruption and good faith are not mutually exclusive). If we hadn't page protection, we would probably witness back-and-forth editing at the same frequency–and such back-and-forth editing usually counts as disruptive by WP standards. –Austronesier (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

On the name change

Reading through all of this im seeing 2 groups of people; people who are denying that Turkiye is the official name at all, and people who think that the article name needs to be changed asap. I think that both of these groups are partially wrong, why can't we just wait for Turkiye to become more commonly used and then change it, i'd be surprised if it never does get changed to Turkiye, but that change does not need to happen right now. MelonIsYes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're supposed to do. Wait and see if the new spelling becomes the most common spelling in English. But that doesn't happen overnight. It will likely take years, if it ever happens. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Türkiye or Turkiye?

So is the new "official" name in English spelled "Türkiye" or "Turkiye"? I'm confused. https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-turkey-is-now-turkiye-and-why-that-matters-52602 says it's "Turkiye", and this is being cited as the new official name in English, yet "Türkiye" is also being cited as the proper spelling. So which is is it? Also, how is this new spelling supposed to be pronounced? Same as Turkey? Inquiring minds want to know! And since the bird is named after the country, won't its spelling have to change too? BilCat (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilCat, for more confusion, see Kahastok's comment under Talk:Turkey#Turkiye. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh deår! Now even my confusion is confused! :) BilCat (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
As diacritics are very rarely used in English, it's unlikely that Türkiye will ever be the most common spelling in English sources. Even when we moved Kiev to Kyiv, almost nobody supported moving it to Kyїv. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The thing about Kiev/Kyiv/Kyїv is that IN Kiev/Kyiv/Kyїv, they spell it Київ. From what I've seen here in Wikipedia, at least for names/terms in languages that use Roman letters with extra doohickies, they generally give the title of the article as written natively (i.e., with the doohickies), and provide a redirect for the title without. Ukrainian, of course, is written natively in a version of the Cyrillic alphabet; various systems for transliteration involve various extra marks. Turkish has, since Ataturk, been written in Roman letters with idiosyncrasies; not only does it use the umlaut/diaeresis, but the letter I is a different letter with or without a dot over, so there's a dotted upper case and an undotted lower case. My guess is, if people here stop the fisticuffs and do (and I speak hypothetically) agree to move the article to reflect a change, it will be titled with the umlaut, and will have a redirect for the new spelling without it. The article on the bird will have a hatnote, and there will be a disambiguation page about Turkey. Just my guess, and I'm simply not going to respond to--or even worry about--any arguments against it. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The RM is for "Türkiye", not "Turkiye", hence the confusion. BilCat (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey/Archive_31&oldid=1160192033"