Talk:Turkey/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Turkey has a new name

Turkiye is the new name of the country (in English) 68.46.158.237 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, they don't. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, they damn do!Thebrakeman2 (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not on WP they don't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The name hasn't been changed, merely the spelling. A name change would be "Swaziland" to "Eswatini" or "Czech Republic" to "Czechia". Turkey is instead using the Turkish language spelling when writing in English. The English name is still the same, "Turkey". BilCat (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Small errors in Name paragraph

In the Name paragraph, the sentence " The disintegration of the country after the World War I, ..." should be changed. If I could edit I'd remove both the 'the' before World, and the comma after 'I'. 2A02:A469:6AEF:1:E5A8:8C5F:F536:13B2 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in. If anyone feels the need ro reply, I'm the topic starter. Roentie (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Roentie, fixed, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkiye

I believe that the name of the page should be changed to "Turkiye" as the country changed it's international name. The name will be registered with the UN in the coming weeks, so I see no reason as to not make the change.

ImStevan (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not according Turkish Constiution. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark: the turkish constitution has clauses about the country's english name? ImStevan (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The source in question is an English translation published in 2019 and has no legal force on its own. ImStevan is correct on that point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• ImStevan Please review WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names, but whatever name is most commonly used in independent reliable sources. That the government is changing the English name is certainly valid article content, but the article should not be renamed until this name is in widespread use. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@331dot: Very much aware of that, but you can argue that Eswatini is more commonly known as Swaziland, but we still have the correct name on the Wikipedia. Turkey can and should remain as a redirect, but I think the article name and most mentions of the country in said article should be changed to Turkiye. Calling it Turkey seems to be no longer correct. ImStevan (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that rename was done improperly, but I have not reviewed that consensus. Happy to follow any consensus that develops here. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@ImStevan: It's because WP:NAMECHANGE says that sources published after the name change should be given credence. What usually happens when things change names is that we wait a while to see if the name actually "takes" in those sources. Are reliable sources going to call it "Turkey" in unrelated articles, or "Turkiye"? For Eswatini we waited and the name stuck, but with a different capitalization than eSwat. But for Czech Republic we still haven't moved it as Czechia still isn't the common name. For "Turkey/Turkiye", I think we should wait and see what sources say. Though I guess we might as well start the inevitable move discussion now so people can get it out of their system. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the official new name has an umlaut/diaeresis over the "u" one must wonder just how common its usage will be and whether, if it does become in common use, whether it will be spelled correctly including that diacritical. But Chess is right, we'll just have to wait and see. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If the government website is anything to go by, the i in Türkiye is intended specifically to be a dotted İ (used in Turkish) rather than a standard Latin I (used in most non-Turkish languages written in the Latin script). Kahastok talk 18:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

From the article: "In January 2022, the country officially changed its international brand". Hopefully there is better wording. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually it was in December 2021.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The best course of action (in my opinion) is to wait for the name to be registered with the UN, make Turkey a redirect, and have the main page be Türkiye, with "Turkey" being the name used in the article for pre-change, and Türkiye being used post-change, unless it is nessasary to do otherwise. The lead would say "Türkiye, often known as Turkey" or something like that.Thebrakeman2 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the Article's Name should reflect the Commonname, and this is still Turkey. Just to give one example among many, a month ago there was a discussion about changing the name of the Sultanahmet Mosque in Istanbul, which in the western (non academic) world is called the Blue Mosque. The main (and only) argument for the change was: "Common name versus official name, Common name wins". Alex2006 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place of fact, not public opinion. To use the old name is to be wrong.Thebrakeman2 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm…what is “fact”. Is WP:COMMONNAME fact? You seem to be suffering WP:OFFICIALNAMES fallacy. DeCausa (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

And your suffering from WP:COMMONNAMES Fallacy. To be an encyclopedia to to report fact, not public opinion. As it hasn’t been registered yet, it is not yet “offical”, so I suggest we wait.

Also, to all the people who are using “the constitution” as an argument, maybe that’s because the change was relatively not that long ago, and your reading an outdated versiom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.170.249 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at the very least be changing the official name in the infobox and lead similar to how the infoboxes and lead are on Ivory Coast and Cape Verde? Something like "Turkey, also known as Türkiye, officially the Republic of Türkiye" would work, no? -- Maykii (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maykii: I'd argue it should be "Turkiye, also known as Turkey, officially the Republic of Turkiye (or Türkiye)" ImStevan (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The infobox would probably change with full confirmation. A vague consensus above was to wait to see what the official submission to the UN is, as the UN records official names in its 6 languages. CMD (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I would say use Republic of Türkiye in #name section and in bold. Until Turkey really submits to the UN, we can then use it at the lead and perhaps use a note like "formerly the Republic of Turkey also in bold. Beshogur (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as per WP:SNOW. This move was discussed and rejected just two days ago. Nothing changed since then. (non-admin closure) Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkey → Turkiye – I just learned from an edit of the article briefly before I made this RM that the official name in English is now Turkiye. (Please don't determine your vote as if there were a diaresis on the u. Also, please keep separate any discussion about whether Turkey should stay a re-direct here, be a dis-ambiguation page, or be the new title of Turkey (bird), which is still called a turkey.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It is far too soon to change the name of this article. If a consensus emerges among the English-speaking world to start calling it Turkiye, then we can re-examine this issue. Right now, however, Turkey is the name that virtually everyone who speaks English uses to refer to the country, and Wikipedia goes by what we use, not what a country's government asks us to use. Lexicon (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support whether "Turkey" should be a DAB or not is relevant to whether this should be at "Turkey" or "Turkiye" per WP:NATURAL. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, per WP:COMMONNAME. Even in the period after Erdogan's December memo, 'Turkey' predominates in English-language sources. News in the past week has described the name change as an ongoing process, with unclear timelines. It's far too soon to make a call on this, and I propose a short moratorium on requested moves until other governments, inter-governmental agencies, and news media can react to moves by the country. Mostly copied from my !vote in the RM from two days ago. Firefangledfeathers 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The name change is not even adopted yet by the largest two Turkish media in English language, Hurriyet Daily News and Daily Sabah, who continue to use "Turkey" as of now. Due mention of the name change can be slowly phased in if usage in local and global English-language media actually increases. Once the name change will be established and dominate in a wide range of sources (which is entirely WP:CRYSTALBALL), we can address the page title again. Copied without changes from my !vote in the RM from two days ago. –Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now due to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. Aside from two Turkish newspapers not yet changing the name mentioned by Austronesier, the change only happens in Anadolu Agency. So, we cannot lead the name change for the country unless reputable global news sources agree the consensus to name change to "Turkiye". 125.167.57.203 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2022 (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.

Official Change of Country Name not reflected in the article

The Republic of Turkey officially changed its name by Presidential Comminique on the 4th of December. The country is now known as the "Republic of Turkiye". All international organizations were informed of the change including the United Nations. See https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-turkey-is-now-turkiye-and-why-that-matters-52602

Not true, it only says Turkey made products will use "Made in Türkiye". Beshogur (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The article says this: In a nod to that, the recently published communique was clear that "within the scope of strengthening the 'Turkiye' brand, in all kinds of activities and correspondence, especially in official relations with other states and international institutions and organisations, necessary sensitivity will be shown on the use of the phrase 'Türkiye' instead of phrases such as 'Turkey,' 'Turkei,' 'Turquie' etc." So they’re changing the name on official documents and all that. Xaea12lol (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Hmm, I see that's correct. Beshogur (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

TRTWorld (which is an official government broadcaster) is basically the only source reporting this. If the United Nations, the Associated Press, etc. start using this spelling, the article will adjust. As it is, I don't think this needs to be mentioned at all. (and would it be Turkiye or Türkiye?) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Turkiye" is the Turkish name as already stated in the article, and does not belong bolded in the lead. Literally only one source covers this, as stated above. Bill Williams 01:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Turkiye is an endonym for the country. So, per WP:USEENGLISH, we should using a common, not official English name. 36.77.102.62 (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Would "Turkey (formally Turkiye)" work? Nar 2608 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The OP did not wanted to change the article's name - which should be based on the common English name - but the official name. Turkish government is trying to to pull a "Cote D'Ivore", where they try to name the country officially by it's native name. Official names are determined by a country's government and not the common use. I was also skeptical of the name change, but a minority of governmental institutions and ministries changed their official names on their websites (1, 2, 3; check the logos). This had been attempted by the previous governments and most likely fail, but nevertheless it is used by some official organizations. I personally think that it should not replace the "Republic of Turkey" in the article since it has such a limited use, but might be mentioned in a footnote. --Gogolplex (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There is only one official name, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti, since Turkey only has one official language which is Turkish. Everything else are just government-endorsed translations, but these have little weight against the common name that is used by international organizations and of course by the global English-speaking public. If Turkey had English as second official language with a constitution officially written in English, things would be different (cf. Eswatini). And the edit warring should stop as long as this is discussed here. –Austronesier (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"There is only one official name, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti," then can you explain me why the lede says "officially Republic of Turkey" and not "officially, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti" or "also known as Republic of Turkey", since it's not an official name according to your argument? Countries having official non-native names is ordinary. Just look at Ivory Coast, a completely non-English speaking country with their own unpopular, government sponsored official name. There is absolutely no policy on Wikipedia that official name should be the common English name, nor the "English-privilege", which only officially English speaking countries can choose theirs. I'm also not the one that is edit warring. I'm behind my argument, it should not be added directly until UN or other big organizations embrace it, but it still have to be mentioned since it is used by ministries. --Gogolplex (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gogolplex: They seem to use the name, but I would wait for official submission to the UN. Beshogur (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say let's mention Republic of Türkiye in the body, not lead, and later, if they decide to change it in the UN completely. Beshogur (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I support Beshogur's approach. –Austronesier (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too early to know what will happen, at least for now. Hextor26 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The country has officially changed its name to the "Republic of Turkiye". Even the Turkish Presidency's Official Twitter account refers to it as the "Republic of Turkiye". Like "Macedonia" became "North Macedonia" on Wikipaedia, Turkiye should be refer to by its official name. See https://twitter.com/trpresidency?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.63.231 (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Independent Turkish newspaper does not use Türkiye https://ahvalnews.com/news Shadow4dark (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think an official first hand source like the Turkish Presidency is more accurate than an "independent newspaper" about the country's name...don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.63.231 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For now the new name is not COMMONNAME but it absolutely should be mentioned in the lead as an english name, such as in Czech Republic, due to being an official english name (NOTE: previous discussion mentioned waiting for a submission to the UN, that has now happened) , perhaps in the future (maybe even near future) the new name will become the common name, but for now it is not. Corinal (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Turkiye to formally register its change of name with the United Nations in coming weeks: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220118-turkey-to-register-at-the-un-with-new-name-turkiye/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.23.53 (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing the English name at the UN is pretty definitive. I think I'd support a page move after that. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How does that follow? In what sense does the Turkish government's registering a change at the UN demonstrate a change in the country's WP:COMMONNAME among native English speakers? Kahastok talk 23:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that the name should be changed from the "Republic of Turkey" to the "Republic of Turkiye" if the UN officially recongises the name change. GucciNuzayer (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that will not happen. Read WP:COMMONNAME. We might change the name after it has become the name most commonly used in English language sources. Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Driving side

It's not right in Turkey it's left hand. 78.182.134.24 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's about the driving side, not the position of the steering wheel. See Left- and right-hand traffic. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Tcganadolu.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Adjectives of the name Türkiye

What would be the adjectival forms and demonyms for the name Türkiye in English? --Potapt (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Potapt, the adjectival form, and the demonym, is "Turkish". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought it would be changed accordingly. Thank you! --Potapt (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It is now Turkiye not Turkey -confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

The country is Turkiye not Turkey can it be corrected to reflect change? 2001:8003:88ED:7D00:D0C2:CB20:9C1E:5552 (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, see prior discussion above. Firefangledfeathers 05:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably should change it to Turkiye Qorymij37 (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We will change it if a clear consensus among major English-language sources start using the new spelling. For now this isn't the case. For example, an article posted today on the Jerusalem Post web site started with The latest tirade against Jews in Turkey was headlined “Young Turks, Jews, Freemasons and the Armenian deportation.”. Animal lover 666 (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to remove 19/20 discussions about 'Turkiye', and revert new ones on sight

At the moment, this talk page has 20 different discussions about the name. That is downright ridiculous, and down to lots of SPA accounts coming in without any new argument and without bothering to read the talk page. All of this violates WP:NOTAFORUM and starts to look downright disruptive. My suggestion is that we merge the 20 current discussions into one, and simply delete new discussions. Just to be clear: I think the discussion is valid, and this is in no way intended to shut down the discussion. It's an effort to keep it focused, not to have (literally) twenty different discussions about the exact same issue. Jeppiz (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support to merge the 20 current discussions into one, and simply delete new discussions, but add: and to refer the posting editors (regardless of whether IPs, SPAs or "regulars") to the existing main discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, though I think we should bundle the multiple, short, declined edit requests together and archive them. Firefangledfeathers 21:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, I bundled up some declined edit requests and archived them in these two consecutive edits. I limited the collection to sections with no discussion beyond the request and decline. Firefangledfeathers 03:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should not revert/remove on sight, this RM has only come up once so I don't see a need for a moratorium yet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree on merging and deleting new ones, but I also don't know if it's valid in the first place. The requested move was Not moved per WP:SNOW and I don't see any further arguments to change it. It might be valid to come back and talk about it in a month or so when it will be more clear exactly what happened and what it means, for now it's just a lot of spam. Eccekevin (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I doubt a month will be even near enough to notice any relevant changes, but time will tell. If the need arises, we can discuss a WP:MORATORIUM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support archiving the 19 brief and repetitive discussions, leaving the Requested move discussion for the benefit of new editors, with the hope that some of them will actually read it. Any new discussions lacking substance like the 19 previous ones should be archived immediately. Any new discussions that advance policy based arguments or provide any new evidence should be allowed to proceed. This matter is likely to be contentious for a long time, and reminds me a bit of the Kiev/Kyiv debate, which eventually resulted in a move. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. There's no reason to keep wasting time on rehashing this over and over again right now. The RM discussion was overwhelmingly against renaming the article now. Give it a rest for now and come back after English-language usage changes. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Super Ψ Dro 13:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not going to agree to grant carte blanche to revert on sight. It is inappropriate to block discussion in this manner, even if several people here find the threads to be annoying. Are we then to expect new users to begin a discussion in order to obtain consensus to start a discussion to obtain consensus regarding the name? Now that sounds downright ridiculous. I don't see an expiration date in this proposal, nor an exit strategy. First, it probably violates WP:BITE and WP:CIVILITY overall. Second, it is WP:POINTY or needlessly bureaucratic in my view to enforce a self-enforcing consensus. Third, even if a local consensus is achieved here, it will not override global consensus for WP:TPG, making this endeavor fruitless; these are good faith attempts to discuss/improve the article (not forum style threads) and are thus protected by TPG. You should consider precisely what it is that is bothering you about the new discussions and seek a targeted remedy for this that is minimally disruptive to other users. For example, if the issue is that we are seeing a dozen new discussions opening up every week and then remaining inactive, then you could consider temporarily configuring an archive bot to auto-archive discussions after ~1 day of inactivity. This is not an uncommon strategy for article talk pages that experience a sudden but temporary spike in activity. Whatever the case may be, please try to think of an option that stops short of frustrating and upsetting inexperienced users. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support for at least a few months. Reasons given above. I do not support removing already-made discussions, keep them, but revert any new ones. If we do end up reverting new Türkiye discussions, I think we should only do it for a few months to see what ends up happening with this situation. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I would say for now this could go to a subpage like Talk:Muhammad/Images. I am fully against removing non-vandalism talk page messages, but moving them to a subpage should be fine. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support But I do have to ask, why has the discussion been removed from the talk page completely? Can somebody at least leave a link to the discussion on the Village pump? ImStevan (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Would it be apropriate to semi-protect the talk page? ObserveOwl (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti])
Boom. Everyone wins. Can we move on now? --85.167.122.81 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If we were using English, it would be "Republic of Turkiye" In Turkish it would be Türkiye. Zyxrq (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC) 10:19

No, it would be "Republic of Türkiye. See the official websites [1] [2]. Just like "Côte d'Ivoire" even if "ô" does not exist in English.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If the letter doesn't exist in English, then it can't be in the English name. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

English commonly uses diacritics in words borrowed from other languages or even sometimes native words. An example you might know is the word "Façade". As such, it does make sense to include ü in the English name. --178.155.5.173 (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. 'Turkey' is the more common English term for the time being and so it would be silly to change the article name or use 'Türkiye' throughout, but its official name is the Republic of Türkiye. The article at present where it says "officially the Republic of Turkey" is now factually incorrect. It is strange that we cannot recognise this despite the number of clear and reputable sources. JayBeckerNCL (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait until official name change is submitted to the UN. Last source says it hasn't been done officially yet. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2022

Türkiye on this page in the English pronunciation is wrote as [turcije], nut I think the English pronounciation should be wrote as ‘Tyrkieh or Turki-e’ as that looks easier to pronounce for English speakers than the original way it was written. I’m just suggesting this so people will not mispronounce the new official English name of ‘Turkey’ Türkiye. With the name change it will take English speakers time to get used to the new name and if they don’t know how to pronounce the new name due to its spelling they may just decide to continue using the name Turkey as the countries official name as it’s easier to pronounce.

Thank you for your consideration. BrettLadislov (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not for Wikipedia editors to make up a pronunciation for "Türkiye". If the Turkish government isn't willing to use a name that is pronounceable for English speakers, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Kahastok talk 20:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

edit turkeys name to Türkiye because in 2022 the government changed the name Adriannicolai07 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 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) 18:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

turkey has recently changed it and to Türkiye and its official title has been changed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Türkiye Commaster101 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Türkiye

The country has changed his name in english, Türkiye instead of Turkey Catalinb2005 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This could be reflected in the lead, but the official naming has little impact on the name of the country in English. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:10FD:A40C:A28B:8C40 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out that we have yet another source for the change to Türkiye (specifically 'Türkiye' and not 'Turkiye'), this time from the BBC. JayBeckerNCL (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

Türkiye, please change the name from Turkey to Türkiye this is the official name authorities have designated for the country of Türkiye. this is so users do not confuse Türkiye for Turkey (as in the animal or product)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved edit request

Moved from Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Turkey

 – * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add the following edit notice:

2.55.13.95 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Deactivating the edit request template pending consensus. The wording of the notice here seems a bit pointy, but some sort of FAQ answer seems sensible. CMD (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

Turkey modify into Türkiye 79.43.86.80 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Turkey→Türkiye

Turkey wants to be called Türkiye Ayen2022-3 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see #Requested move 20 January 2022 above. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Name change of Turkey to Türkiye.

I suggest to change the name of from Turkey to Türkiye instead of having a small part talking about the name change. 2601:681:0:7DB0:7C17:2BB3:28F5:5062 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Declined (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The government of turkey

I think we need to edit the government like the coup in 1980 or in 1960 I think you can do this Democrasy in europe (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you should add events like the 1980 or 1960 coup to the government section. Democrasy in europe (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User changing the name

As it has been discussed above, the page should not yet be remained to Türkiye. Yet, user keeps changing both the lede sentence and the name in the infobox to Türkiye without discussing it and engaging in an edit war with myself and one other user (User:Ppdbt2001). For clarity, in the infobox name should be the name in English (see Template:Infobox_country) and there is an appropriate spot for the name in the native language (|native_name=)). As it has been discussed, the name in English is still considered to be Turkey and not Türkiye, as well as Republic of Turkey and not Republic of Türkiye, hence that's what should go in the parameter |conventional_long_name=. The user has engaged in a discussion above, but with most users disagreeing (to my count, User:Alpha Piscis Austrini, User:Hogweard, User:Chipmunkdavis) with him and then made the changes without reaching consensus. Eccekevin (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Turkish news pages still use Turkey [[3]][[4]] Shadow4dark (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I engaged with this on the talk page. I received one objection to which I promptly responded and haven't heard any objection in over 7 days. You were engaging in an edit war just as much as myself, but you were not attempting to engage on the talk page. I never once proposed to rename the page to Türkiye, which would plainly go against Wikipedia policies (see WP:COMMONNAME). The official name of Turkey is no longer the "Republic of Turkey" but the "Republic of Türkiye", which is confirmed by Turkish Government websites and other reliable sources that the country has officially changed its name to Türkiye. Jèrriais janne (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC) NB: I was changing the name in the infobox to the official long name in English, which is "Republic of Türkiye", in accordance with Wikipedia convention. I have already explained this above. Jèrriais janne (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You've received plenty of objections, both from me and other users. I don't know what " accordance with Wikipedia convention" means in this case. Which policy are you referencing? For now, it's been established by several RfC that WP:COMMONNAME applies and that Turkey and Republic of Turkey are the common names in English. The Turkish government does not have control of this page: we don't follow Turkish government sources, we follow English-speaking media outlets and academic sources. The "official name" in Turkish is "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti" and indeed that is present on the page. Eccekevin (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Everything should be moved to Türkiye

Every article related to Turkey must be must moved to Türkiye ASAP. It is now becoming the WP:COMMONNAME and is being commonly used in the tourism industry and news articles. Also earlier this month, Türkiye's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued a communique, tweaking the country's internationally recognised name from "Turkey" to Türkiye. Because it has been mentioned that "The word Türkiye represents and expresses the culture, civilisation, and values of the Turkish nation in the best way," said the communique. Countries changing or tweaking their names is not as unusual as one might think.The business of nation-branding can happen for a whole host of reasons, whether to rise above cliches, present a more positive image or even for politics. In recent years a whole industry has arisen catering to countries and cities seeking to promote themselves internationally and taking charge of how the world sees them and their unique identity.194.146.157.91 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

we need a new vote and new consensus.194.146.157.91 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Turkish news pages still use Turkey [[5]][[6]] Shadow4dark (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems [7] authorities already enforces in NATO, but haven't seen in NATO main website. Beshogur (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

ok but i think we should move it now because it relfects the turkish civilisations as i said and is also changing everywhere slowly including in TRT world which is the main goverment news agency.194.146.157.91 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

dont forget to mention TRT World the main goverment news agency.194.146.157.91 (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows WP:Common name not WP:Official name. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Swaziland changed to Eswatini and thats not common name.194.146.157.91 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Türkiye is way more in use than Eswatini and if that can change so can this.194.146.157.91 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Whataboutism is not an argument, it is a fallacy. And regardless of how questionable the move of Swaziland was, the current WP:Consensus is to name it like that. This is what non-Wikipedia people don't understand. Wikipedia is built upon consensus, not on feelings. Unless you open a new WP:RM where you demonstrate (with physical and tangible evidence) that Türkiye is the current common name in the English-speaking world, then you will have an argument, otherwise this page won't be moved, no matter how much you try to. The current consensus is to name this page "Turkey" and absolutely no one will move this page solely because people think it should be moved upon their beliefs. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@194.146.157.91: There are already discussions opened above, please to not open a new one. Also, I agree with @Tbhotch:, and I stated the position in the discussions above, which I invite you to join. Eccekevin (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Name Changes

In December 2021, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan changed Turkey's name from Turkey to Türkiye. This should be changed in the official web page of Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotMints (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware that the gentleman in question had legal authority over the tongues of English-speaking people. As others have said repeatedly, the common name of the country in English is 'Turkey' and until that changes, which may be never, then the page must remain. Wikipedia reflects actual usage: it is not here to create a reality. Hogweard (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Many countries have changed their names:

Persia to Iran. ... Siam To Thailand. ... Democratic Kampuchea To Cambodia. ... Burma To Myanmar. ... Holland To Netherlands. ... Irish Free State To Ireland. ... Ceylon To Sri Lanka. ... The Republic Of Macedonia To The Republic Of North Macedonia.

Turkey has also now changed its name to the Republic of Turkiye. Eventually, everyone will get use to it- even all the Turkophobes on this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.86.205 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Even so, right now, currently, Turkey is still the predominant name used by English-speaking people. As said before, until that changes, then the title will not change. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing “Turkphobic” about it. See WP:CIVIL - also the Irish free state doesn’t even exist any more lol and some of those names are post-colonial and as Turkey is not nor has it ever been under foreign colonial rule I find those comparisons to be off the mark. Macedonia was literally changed to calm a naming dispute. Also Iran has absolutely no issue with being referred to as Persia today.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:754A:75D1:5053:4079 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely the lead should cite the official name as Republic of Türkiye now, even if the common name remanes Turkey, if the country's official name is now Türkiye and the Republic of Turkey is no longer recognised as an official name. There's plenty of precedent for Government decisions to rename countries or places being recognised in the lead of Wikipedia articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eswatini
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur-Sultan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabo_Verde (still commonly known as Cape Verde in English)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor

Jèrriais janne (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It is still Republic of Turkey in places like the UNGEGN website, which goes by official names. CMD (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That site doesn't claim to be current. It claims to be up to date to April 2019. If the article was 'Turkey in 2019' then that would make sense, but this is Turkey in 2022. That also has no bearing on Wikipedia, e.g. on that list Taiwan is not listed as its own country called the Republic of China, but Wikipedia lists it as that, because that is what its government considers it. Many sources officially recognise the new name: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/default.en.mfa (Ministry of Foreign Affairs); https://www.tccb.gov.tr/en/ (Turkish President website) Jèrriais janne (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A note on my recent reversion: The official name in the infobox has been changed to Republic of Türkiye, because according to Template:Infobox_country, the parameter "conventional_long_name" should be the 'formal or official full name of the country in English', which is now Republic of Türkiye. This is also in line with, e.g. Taiwan, listed as 'Republic of China'; Greece, listed as 'the Hellenic Republic'; St Kitts and Nevis, listed as the Federation of St Christopher and St Nevis; and Brunei, listed as 'Brunei Darussalam. '(Turkey)' has also been kept in brackets to highlight the common usage in English still being the old name of the country and avoid confusion. Jèrriais janne (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you misquoted the parameter |conventional_long_name=, whose definition is "Full name in English". The full name in English is still Turkey. The name in English is not under the jurisdiction of the Turkish government. the official name is under their jurisdiciton, and indeed Türkiye is used in the parameter |native_name=. Secondly, Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS not precedent, so whatever goes on in other pages has no bearing here. But even if we follow your example, Hellenic Republic is the same as Republic of Turkey, since "Hellenic" is an English word. It's not the "Ellinikí Republic" (which would be like

Republic of Türkiye). The Turkish government has no power over the English languge, the translation of Türkiye is Turkey, just as the translaiton of Ellinikí Dimokratía is Hellenic Republic, no matter if the Greeks insist it is "Ellinikí". Eccekevin (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this, should definitely be changed, cases can be made for the common name but it's strange to argue the official name is still Republic of Turkey. Deuteranopia (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The official name is "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti", here we are arguing about the English name instead. Eccekevin (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Remove "Turkey" and change to "turkiye"

Remove - Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Turkey

edite to - Turkiye (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Turkiye

Remove TURKEY and change it to TURKIYE Serk02 (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The president of TURKEY have changed the international name of the country to TURKIYE

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/turkey-name-change-turkiye-world-appease-uk-britain-1407716

Not done. See all the discussions above for why. Erdogan doesn't decide how other countries, people, websites, ... call a country. He can decide on the English name as used by Turkey (its government and so on), and he can probably force English-language media in Turkey to use his prefered form, but Wikipedia is guided by the common name as used in English language sources worldwide, not by the decision of a politician. Fram (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: Agreed, there's 4 similar discussions above if you want to chekc it out. Eccekevin (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Last discussion for name proposals?

I still agree that we should wait for UN submission, however it seems like Republic of Türkiye is used everywhere by the Turkish officials. I would say:

• A Turkey
• B Turkiye (without ü, as used by AA[8])
• C Türkiye

Which of them should be used in bold? I would say all of those three. However my thoughts are for now, that we should call it "Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye" (and a note, explain the situation), ... The same way for the conventional_long_name on the infobox? Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment There are already discussions on this topic. Please don't start new discussions and go to those. Eccekevin (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: none of them have proper outcome. Beshogur (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That doesn;t mean a new one should be started, but to join the ones above. Eccekevin (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with this proposal for the lede. Khestwol (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose any changes until the sources shift. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Turkey to Republic of Türkiye

Not as the title, but where it says officially called ‘Republic of Turkey’. There’s precedence with Côte d’Ivoire. What do you guys say?Angele201002 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, see my posts on this above Jèrriais janne (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Disagree The name in English is still Republic of Turkey as used by the vast majority of sources and media per WP:COMMONNAME. If, as the RfC above have established, Turkey in the title should not be supplanted by Türkiye, why would Republic of Turkey be replaced by Republic of Türkiye? As Shadow4dark points out, Turkish news pages still use Turkey [[9]][[10]] (UTC)Eccekevin (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The English name is not relevant. We talk about the official name since that's how the article refers to the name. And the only authority that can call the country name official is the country itself. And Turkey decided that this is going to be 'The Republic of Turkiye'. So saying that the official name is 'The Republic of Turkey' is factually untrue and has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME SoapDispenser94 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The English name is absolutely relevant, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Read WP:COMMONNAME and Template:Infobox country, where it states that the |name= is for the name in English. The official name of the country is Türkiye Cumhuriyetim which is indeed listed on the lede and the infobox in the parameter |native_name=. Here we are talking about the name in English, not Turkish. Eccekevin (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment Also, there are already two discussions about this. Please refrain from joining this one and join the ones above. Eccekevin (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Eccekevin's arguments. I have made a similar point a few months ago. There is the official name Türkiye Cumhuriyeti which has not changed at all (and which probably couldn't be that simply changed out of a whim without a major legislative process), and there is the novel English translation ('Republic of Turkiye') of that official name which is endorsed and promoted by the current Turkish government. These are two quite different things.

The novel translation is based on a proposed English name ('Turkiye') which hasn't gained any currency yet at all outside of state-controlled publications and sites. (I open Daily Sabah once a week just to check whether they still use Turkey: they do. Otherwise, they are very quick in following language usage of the Erdoğan government, e.g. in the broad use of the t-word.) –Austronesier (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Dominant Party "System"?

I see that at more or less regular intervals "dominant-party system" is entered as form of government in the infobox, and just as regularly is removed, so I think we need to clarify things a bit. First of all, the field in question is reserved for the form of government: monarchy, parliamentary republic, presidential republic, etc. Now, there is nothing in the Turkish constitution that assures the AKP a pre-eminence over other parties, so the inclusion of 'dominant party "system" 'in that field is wrong. Why then this perseverance in inserting this information? I think it is because those who include it want to point out that in Turkey there has been no alternation in the national government for several years. Here too there is something to discuss, given that the AKP has not governed alone for several years. But is the lack of alternation, even if the government is a coalition, an information that should be included in the infobox? If yes, a special field should be created, but please don't touch the "Government" field, unless the dominance of one party over the others has been written into the constitution.Alex2006 (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

AKP is not even a dominant party, it's a minority government, where you need 300/600 for majority government. Also it's funny that you've written authoritarian dictatorship, which is not true. Beside that, the inclusion of "dominant party" is simple problematic. Beshogur (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight and recentism in the lead

Since then, the new Turkish governmental system under president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his party, the AKP, has often been described as Islamist and authoritarian.[27][28] The latter's rule over the country has also led to numerous currency crises,[29] increasing inflation and economic decline,[30] as well as a rise in poverty.[31]"

This section is very problematic. First of all, AKP has been ruling Turkey since 2002 and Turkish economy (nominal) grew immensely under their regime between 2002 and 2014ish and the severe hardships started to reveal themselves only after 2018 due to AKP's economic mismanagement. These sentences basically give immense weight to recent developments meanwhile completely bypass Turkish economic "miracle" between 2002-2014 under the AKP regime and their economically-liberal policies.

Almost every source (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) before 2015 note the economic success of the regime, meanwhile criticizing it's problems. The past economic growth under AKP is usually cited as on of the biggest reasons how they had kept power so long. The lead right now implies that AKP caused these problems during their whole regime period, which is not the case here.

Thus, "The latter's rule over the country" should be changed to "Since the mid-2010s the latter's rule over the country" and there should be a short, preliminary sentence about economic growth under AKP to avoid recentism and undue weight. --Gogolplex (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I think a better second sentence would be:

"Additionally, since around 2018, Erdoğan's economic policies have led to numerous currency crises, increasing inflation and economic decline,[29][30] a departure from the country's significant economic growth from around 2002 to 2014.[source]"

The "rise in poverty" part can be deleted because the article cited as [31] doesn't even mention poverty.

However, in the first sentence, I think there should be an explicit reference to Turkey's brazen human rights abuses, particularly against Kurdish activists (Leyla Zana, Selahattin Demirtaş) and critical journalists (Turkey had more journalists in prison than any other country in the world in as of 2017). "Islamist and authoritarian" alone doesn't really cut it.

I would make these changes myself but I'm not extended confirmed. JayAmber (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Western hypocrisy over non-willingness to use new name

The consensus should clearly be:

1. Leave "Turkey" as a "common name" in English language

2. Add "Republic of Turkiye" to official names, as this is exactly what Erdogan decreed about. It's already been "Turkiye" in Turkish language since forever, the decree is exactly about official usage in English language.

3. There are already numerous, I mean numerous, references to country as "Turkiye" in English-language journalistics, common usage is rapidly following to grow as well. So right now if you claim that Turkey is still a common name in English, talking about 2022 and beyond, you should cite your sources, otherwise you are pushing WP:OR. The utterrings of uh but can't u see it's obvious Turkey is still widespread are hypocrisy starting from 2022. You now need to provide sources for your "uh, muh obvious"

4. Use both "Turkey" and "Turkiye", together with "Republic of Turkey" and "Republic of Turkiye"in the article's lead, that is the most neutral point of view for now.

Little rant: When it suits the western agenda, they change the names as quickly as it can be. Nowadays, you will see a westerner likely ripping himself apart over not saying "the Ukraine" cause it's politically incorrect, as they say (read: they support Ukrainian nationalists and their "struggle against Russia", so they prefer to call it without a definite article, cause it "makes it look less like a Russian province"). I remember vividly the exact analogous battles about "Belorussia", or even "White Russia" vs. "Belarus", where the West decided that siding with "Belarus" is more politically correct for the same reasons as with Ukraine.

You also see how quickly these westerners forgot about "FYROM" (Former Yugoslavian Rep of Macedonia) and stressed, that now it should be only called "North Macedonia", cause.. again political correctness.

In each of these 3 cases, "common usage" was never even brought to table. The westerners played the "politically correct" card instead. By "political correctness" they hypocritically disguised their dominant worldview: it is better to support calling those countries "Ukraine" and "Belarus" cause it makes them look less related to "evil" Russia (in their opinion), it is convenient to call Macedonia "North Macedonia" cause they desperatedly wanted it in NATO.

But Turkiye leads a sovereign political line and increasingly cares less and less about the Western "ideals" and issues. So here the westerners play the "common usage" card cause it is convenient for their hypocrisy. 178.121.25.57 (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Eventually, and there is no doubt, you will change it to Turkiye, cause no matter how hard you try to construct the alternative reality, Turkiye is big, sovereign and has more weight than western librarian wikipedians. Mark my words. Even the current resistance of the western wikipedians against putting Turkiye into the lead shows their agenda, don't try to re-write history, acknowledge that right here truth and neutrality are not on your side and your non-neutral agenda is about to be crushed. Give up. 178.121.25.57 (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The English language Wikipedia will change the name of this article to Türkiye when the preponderance of reliable sources in the English language adopt this usage. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator. The article already states that the name transliterates as Türkiye in the Turkish language, and the country's government used the traditional English spelling Turkey in its English language communications until quite recently. So, what's the rush? Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

As to your 3 examples: North Macedonia was unusual in that English-language sources changed quickly. Your other 2 examples came from cases where the new names predated Wikipedia by most of a decade. A better example would be changing Kiev to Kyiv, which we did 6 years after the trend started in response to the annexation of Crimea. 2.55.12.58 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you, or someone else, ping me if there's a vote to change the name to Turkiye again? I would have voted in support. I think the common name rules, while understandable, ought to be adjusted when it comes to country names. Turkiye instead of Turkey, Tsarna Gora instead of Montenegro, Sakartvelo instead of Georgia, Deutschland instead of Germany, etc. In a world where we're very likely to talk to people from other countries on a daily basis, it probably behooves us to call nations what they wish to be called and by their proper names. I think country names should be an exception here. Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe yes, but then ideally based on the principle of mutuality :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022 reverts

First of all, The Ottoman Empire and turkey are not synonymous. argument is solely wrong, because the names "Turkey" and "Turkish Empire" were used in the last two centuries of the Ottoman Empire, in international treaties, etc. Secondly, as I told, Turkey is a legal successor state. Turkey#Republic of Turkey section clearly tells everything. Also beside that, the state institutions were not reestablished, but the systems were followed. [11] and see how Turkey paid Ottoman Empire's public debt after it was disestablished. On 1 November 1922, the Turkish Parliament in Ankara formally abolished the Sultanate, thus ending 623 years of monarchical Ottoman rule. The Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923, which superseded the Treaty of Sèvres,[122][123] led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed "Republic of Turkey" as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially proclaimed on 29 October 1923 in Ankara, the country's new capital.[125] That's enough. Beshogur (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Ottoman entry in the infobox is a new addition and, given that it's contested, needs consensus for its addition. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: It's fine for me. I didn't add before, because I thought it's better to add only the current entity, however I see that many countries in EU, many, have directly unrelated predecessors like Ukraine and Russia having Kievan Rus or Cossak Hetmanate for example, even Georgia (country) having far fetched claim like "13th c. BC", while Ottoman claim is legit and well known. Beshogur (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, @Beshogur: I don't see anything wrong with that addition on the infobox. The added information is sourced, and it was mentioned in the article itself. As Beshogur mentioned, similar practice also can be found in other countries infobox such as China, South Korea, France, Ethiopia, and many others. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: Either we remove all of those, or we add the Ottoman Empire, which is well sourced and established. Most of those countries "predecessors" do not even have direct relationship to those modern states, while Turkish state institutions, even the flag comes from the Ottoman Empire. Beshogur (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I don't think it is practical to remove all of those since you may need consensus on each individual articles, so it's better to have the later option. Afterall, it was sourced and mentioned in article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

well it's been obvious that the Ottoman Empire is a successor state, why is it mentioned so frequently if it's the otherwise. Beshogur (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to hear @Eccekevin:'s objection of such addition to get proper consensus. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Turkey, the current state with approximately the current borders, was created in 1900s. It would be like the Roman Empire vs modern Italy. The Ottoman Empire was a vastly different polity, with a much larger size, different peoples, and different political systems. I don’t think successor states should be in this infobox. With regards to the other pages, what happens in one page does not affect the others, that’s a principle of Wikipedia. We work by consensus and guidelines, not precedence. Eccekevin (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC) @Eccekevin: you haven't put any valid argument. Turkey's state organizations (Police, army, gendarmerie, etc.) comes from the Ottoman Empire after Abdulmejid. Because it's big, therefore it can not be included is your assumption, and the comparison with Roman Empire is very bad, as if other countries on their infoboxes had similar state administrations with their listed predecessors. If you think that others should be removed as well, expecting the same sensitivity to other pages as well. Beshogur (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that English and French language agreements from the 18th century, uses the name "Turkey". @EvergreenFir: what are your opinions on Eccekevin's argument? Beshogur (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would be in favour of inclusion. The comparison with the Roman Empire and Italy does not hold up, because in between there are 1500 years of history, a myriad of states and statelets that have arisen in the interim, and even two different peoples (Romans and Italians). In the case of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, on the other hand, there is temporal continuity and the same people. I see another problem, however: the Turkish government has repeated ad nauseam that Turkey is not responsible for the various genocides that took place in the early 1900s because the Turkish state has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, if we include this information we go against the official Turkish position. Alex2006 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: That's an argument I hear many times, however the [12] position of Turkish governments is a bit different, not sure if the Turkish government has repeated ad nauseam that Turkey is not responsible for the various genocides that took place in the early 1900s because the Turkish state has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire statement is correct considering they simply do not recognize it, and say it's a deportation. Beshogur (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: Help:Infobox (esp. What should an infobox not contain? section) provides some "guideline" on what information should be included in the infobox, which are 1) Comparable, that's why we compare it to other articles. 2) Concise, the inclusion gives quick information to reader that current Turkey is successor to Ottoman. 3) Materially relevant to the subject, History of turkey is definitely relevant to this article. 4) Already cited elsewhere in the article, it was mentioned in the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the Ottoman period in the infobox per Beshogur's arguments. Drawing conclusions from Turkey's position about the Armenian genocide is of little help here, but FWIW, Ankara's politics of denial does very much come from the perspective of a successor state. –Austronesier (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral at the moment, I can make both cases in my head. I will add a note that many many articles do this very very poorly, including some of the examples raised above. In this case a valid connection regarding political successions has been noted above with a good source, and that is a much stronger argument than following other articles that do things incorrectly. CMD (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: That's not my argument exactly. I mean other articles have such incorrect things, while Ottoman-Turkey continuity is well established, I expect the same sensitivity to other articles. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Tough problem to fix. Most country articles are bad, and improving them is a lot of work and a lot of time investment. CMD (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As Alex2006, there are legal distinctions, backed by Turkey itself, that separate the two. Additionally, the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate, which was a huge component of the Ottoman Mepire, also shows that Turkey is rather a new entity. Also, for example, the Turkish War of Independence saw the Turskish nationalists opposed to the Ottoman forces. Finally, what goes on in other pages might be wrong, but that does not affect what goes on in this page. Eccekevin (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well your first argument was claiming Ottoman Empire and the term Turkey isn't used together, however in every treaty after 1800s, Ottoman Empire was called Turkey, including Sevres that Ottomans signed. Soviet Union and the Russian Empire are also continuation despite coexisting for 2 years. So that's a bad example. You do not have any source, but purely based on your own assumption, while the this article mentions somewhere below that Turkey succeeded Ottoman Empire. Beshogur (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Map of India

Indian map shown is incorrect. POK is india territory, why it's shown under Pakistan and China? Please correct asap or you would start another bad conflict. Theravidk (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about the map at the top of the infobox in green where India’s borders are barely visible and absolutely no one, but no one, would notice or care about the detail of how India’s borders are represented on a map that has absolutely nothing to do with the Indo-Pak situation, except ultra nationalist obsessives who poke around irrelevant aspects of articles looking to unnecessarily create shit storms wherever they can? That one? Then the answer is: no. It’s the standard NPOV representation of the ceasefire line. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Turkey to Turkiye in official name

While the points about common usage all stand true the official name of a country will almost never be of common usage since it is only used formally. Listing of the official name should either just be the base form of "Turkiye" or both "Turkey" and "Turkiye". And as a countries official name doesn't have anything to do with common usage it would be fair to assume that that argument wont be made against this point. Killaved42 (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally perhaps include the form Turkiye in the first description. In brackets or the suchto imply uncommon use Killaved42 (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s official name is Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. That’s already represented in the article. What you’re referring to is how it is referred to in English which is a different issue and by definition is about usage in English. DeCausa (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The real official name of the country is actually 'Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti' Metuboy (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits by Metuboy

Poverty in Turkey

Look Turkey has an HDI index as 'Very High' with a GDP PPP per capita 32.000 dollars higher than all the Latin American countries and many Western countries and including some of the EU countries (Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia). It is considered as a developed country by many organizations. And the life expectancy is actually higher than USA!!!

If we are gonna give a correct representation of the country. We should be honest and say that the country is developed and people are not in poverty. Check the poverty rate in any metric and it is the same as any other country in Europe!! Minimum wage increased from 3000 TL to 4500 TL in the past two months just to adjust with the inflation. and the inflation that everyone is talking about does not have a real impact due to this huge boost in the minimum wage. Just because you read three articles doesnt make the country in ruins. Read the full report of OECD on Turkey for this year if you really wanna understand how the economy is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metuboy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Metuboy: It's true that poverty incidence in Turkey decreased from 44% to 18% between 2002 and 2014. However, refer to Turkish Statistical Institute data, the poverty rate is increasing since 2017 which also happen to starting period of current administration and aligned with statement on lead section of Turkey article. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok but still poverty rate is pretty low compared to 90% of the world. It is still non sense to use this argument. Since Covid all the EU countries also had higher rates of poverty rate. Should we also include this to all those country pages??? It is absurd to discuss these kind of very small variations in the main page also missleading! Metuboy (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Metuboy: the point of that sentence is to inform reader that after the current administration rise to power and the governmental system changed, the poverty rate is steadily increasing. The pandemic is just another catalyst to exacerbate the situation. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ckfasdf. “Poverty” is a relative concept and current trends and developments is a standard aspect of country articles. And I don’t think many economists would agree with you that 54% inflation is just fine because the minimum wage had to be increased 50% in 2 months!! Inflation, economic decline and consequent increase in poverty has been a major feature of the last 5 years and needs to be featured. DeCausa (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok in fact many economist argue that since the GDP per capita PPP is in steady increase (doesnt matter the inflation rate). Peoples actual purchasing power is increasing. You can also check IMF OECD and The World Bank data. Turkey was the second fastest growing economy during the pandemic. should we also add this information there as well? Metuboy (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost every economist in the world argue that GDP per capita (PPP) is the best metric to measure the standards of living in a country. I havent read any other argument. Here is the link below:

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPPC@WEO/OEMDC/TUR Metuboy (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Any economic metric by itself is meaningless to asses the economy, we also need to look up on other metrics to get comprehensive view on the economy of certain country. And as DeCausa mentioned, the economic decline during the current administration need to be featured since Turkey pretty much doing well before this administratoin. However, you can put any other metric on Economy section. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

One thing is saying Turkey is now less democratic and more autoritarian or individual rights and freedoms decreased but still even if this is the case we should still say that economy of the country is doing good. Currency crisis is almost doing the reserve effect in the country. Just boosting the exports and increasing the industrial output. Which causes more and more deindustrialization in some other developed countries and Turkey becomes more and more industrial thanks to currency leverage.

You should also check 'Currency manipulation' and 'Currency Wars' to understand my point. Devaluation of the currency is not a negative thing. China, Korea, Taiwan and many other developing countries use this strategy quite frequently. And this model also definetely works in Turkey.

I am actually really worried about this perception in general. It is just not representing the truth. I think it is hard to say that this autoritarian regime is doing well on economy (Especially saying this in the Western democracies but at the same time, manipulating the information and not saying the truth is even worse. Because the wrong perception is not really improving anything.

This is the OECD Forecast for the future (This forecast made in February 2022, the most recent one):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(PPP)#Long_term_GDP_estimates

I think people should be aware of this fact! and it gives a wrong signal for everyone if people think that Turkey's economy will go worse in the future or not perfoming well. Or poverty is increasing. I am just saying that telling the truth will be far more beneficial for everyone. Especially in the Western countries with freedoom of media but for political concerns people avoid to say it. This forecast is really significant many other organizations also do very similar forecasts. Turkish economy will surpress the German one in 2 decades and we are still discussing that economy is getting worse (fully biased opinion not a fact I think). Metuboy (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There’s no point putting forward your own arguments for why devaluation etc “is a good thing”. That really is irrelevant for us. The only issue is what the reliable sources are saying. The OECD long range forecast is interesting, but it’s just that - a long range forecast. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL there’s not much to be done wit that other than perhaps noting that that is the OECD’s long-range forecast. It doesn’t necessarily say a great deal about the current situation. In reality, most sources are saying something along the lines of the current World Bank assessment i.e. “risks to the outlook are tilted to the downside”. You have to be careful that you don’t fall into the trap of thinking Wikipedia is the place to get the world to see the “truth” and correct a misconception. It’s not - see WP:RGW. DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Law

@Metuboy: Per this. I’ve deleted it again - do not restore it. There are multiple problems with the paragraph. firstly, it’s a WP:COPYVIO of the cited source. There’s a strict policy on COPYVIO’s and if you restore it again you’re at risk of being blocked. Secondly, the cited source is not WP:RS. But thirdly, it’s just nonsense. It’s completely incorrect that the Turkish sytem is “wholly integrated” into the European legal system. It’s not even fully integrated into EU law. What does it even mean? DeCausa (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It seems that sentence is taken from Judicial system of Turkey, so that article is also WP:COPYVIO then.

Anyway, IMO, the idea of that sentence is just to say "Law of Turkey is based on a civil law system". Ckfasdf (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but that’s not what it actually said. I’ve taken it out of Judicial System of Turkey too. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please also edit the link below also and Put a different colour for Turkey!!! and also explain your great ideas... If you are not an expert on the issue, you really shouldnt touch on wikiedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png

Turkey copied the Swiss constition and Italian Civil Code. (This is a fact guys!) If you remove this information, we have to say that in 1920s and 1930s we invented our own system. We are the most creative people on Earth in Turkey and it doesnt even resemble the European courts and laws.

I hope you can get this non-sense. Literally you guys removed the whole information about the 'Judicial system of Turkey'. Nobody claims that 'It’s fully integrated into EU law.' this phrase was not even mentioning EU!!! EU and Europe seperation is blurred in your minds. Moreover, like I said the system and the quality of it are two different points. The whole Latin America also uses European system. This doesnt make it neither European continent nor gives them European quality of jurisdiction. Metuboy (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Look, you seem to have problems understanding what is being said to you. Let me spell it out. No. 1: The paragraph breached copyright law. By reinstating it under our policies you can be indefinitely blocked. It MUST be taken out immediately. Read WP:COPYVIO befor you make any reply. This is one of our most important policies. No. 2: If you want something like that to be in there you - and I mean YOU, not me, YOU - have to re-write it because it was nonsense. The Turkish judicial system is not “wholly integrated” into the European system. It just isn’t. It may be “based” on the civil European system but that is a different thing. You - and I mean YOU - need to write it correctly. No. 3: You - and I mean YOU - need to find a reliable source to support what you write. The source that was cited can’t be used. Got it? Don’t defend garbage. DeCausa (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I get the point of copyrights but even with other sources you wanna remove the information from the discussion this is what I get. I will use the 'based on' phrase instead soon Metuboy (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to WP:AGF and pay attention to what is actually said to you rather imagining grievances. I have no problem with a paragraph explaining that the Turkish judicial system was based, copied, derived or whatever on/from the civil European system. But it has to be worded properly and properly cited to a source that complies with WP:RS. Not the garbage nonsense I took out. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The World Factbook is public domain per https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/copyright-and-contributors/ , but yea... your addition is better. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: You’re right! However, I’ve reverted this because this article doesn’t use sfn and WP:CITEVAR requires consistency with the existing style. (There isn’t a Bibliography for the reference - only ‘Further reading’ which would be incorrect). DeCausa (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

official name

The place where it says “officially the Republic of Turkey” should be changed to Republic of Turkiye instead, but with the page title intact due to it being the common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipedianUser12 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to close this thread, as the name-change is still an on-going process, and it is not significant for it to be talked. WikipedianUser12 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The official name was officially changed, so this change should be reflected in the article ArinDude (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above and WP:COMMONNAME EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

The official name in English is Turkiye now instead of Turkey, which can be seen on the official communications/output of the ministry of culture. A change in the name of the wiki article would be more-so in order. 78.190.104.1 (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See the discussions above, and WP:COMMONNAME ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The name "Turkey"

its "Turkiye" not "Turkey", according to the literal leader of turkiye. The nation changed its name after concerns of mistaking the country's name with the food, or how the word "Turkey" is a metaphore for being an idiot or stupid in some places. Guck the Mighty (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: double word

Could someone with editing privileged please fix the line "Also also it is a member of Erasmus Student Network which is a Europe-wide student organisation which has more than 15.000 volunteers across the Europe." in the Education section. The double "also" is the error. -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharizard: Fixed  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)