Contents

Talk:Turkey/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

The result of the move request was: There's consensus for Option 1. Among the cited arguments is that the country's name has not been officially changed at the UN. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Which of the following two should be the article's lede sentence?

1. Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti] ^ⓘ)
2. Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti] ^ⓘ)

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Poll

• Option 2. The most official name in English is "Türkiye", not "Turkey". WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here because we're discussing what we should describe the official name as, not what we should title or describe the country as in the text. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 We do not base wikipedia articles off the statements of Turkish state media. The UN still lists Turkey's name as "Turkey" and it is still WP:COMMONNAME so I suggest Option 1 unless there is some sort of official law mandating the change.
  • We do when we're discussing what name is "official". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is still no official act of the Grand National Assembly mandating this name change. Erdoğan can flaunt his nationalist agenda all he wants, but I am only willing to change my answer if there is a specific law for changing the name. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 The Turkish government is using the name『Republic of Türkiye』and the article should be in line with other articles such as the Ivory Coast with『Republic of Côte d'Ivoire』even if is not the common English name of the country.--Kappasi (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 for neutrality, so that both spellings of the name (Turkey, Türkiye) are represented. Khestwol (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 It’s misleading to say this is a new “official” name. What has happened is much more limited than that. This is Erdogan’s circular of 3 December and thisisHürriyet Daily News’s coverage of it. What the circular actually says is that “Made in Türkiye” should be stamped on exports - that’s the focus of the circular. As far as other usage is concerned, it says “necessary sensitivity will be shown on the use of the phrase ‘Türkiye’ instead of phrases such as ‘Turkey,’ ‘Turkei,’ ‘Turquie’ etc.”. Erdogan doesn’t under the constitution have the power to determine an “official name” for the country and the circular doesn’t claim that this is the official name in English. Some of the Turkish media have got very excited about this and there’s plenty of exaggerated references to an “official name” but I don’t believe any such media coverage is WP:RS for the legal position, which is this is about, per WP:RSCONTEXT. DeCausa (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Türkiye is used by most government departments now on their official English language websites, not just for products made in Turkey.Kappasi (talk) Kappasi (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  that doesn’t make it the “official name” and there are departments that don’t use it. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 The official name of the country has not changed. It is still Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. We translate it by its components the way these are translated in common usage: Türkiye → "Turkey" Cumhuriyet → "Republic". The current government has chosen to promote "Turkiye" as translation for Türkiye, and hence『Republic of Türkiye』for Türkiye Cumhuriyeti, but that does not affect the rendering of the official name in WP based on common usage. –Austronesier (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. As far as I can tell, Erdogan did not declare『Republic of Türkiye』to be the country's official name. His memo expressed his wish that『Türkiye』be used as the brand of the nation in official publications and communications, mentioning『Made in Türkiye』in particular. No mention of what the official name in English should be. Many sources covering this in the following months have made it clear that this is an ongoing process, including by getting the UN to change the way it refers to the country. No source presented so far has said that this has actually happened. The UN is still using "Republic of Turkey".
  Major Turkish governmental institutions, including its national legislature and highest court, are still prominently using "Turkey", with the Constitutional Court using the full "Republic of Turkey". English language news media is continuing to use "Republic of Turkey" over "of『Türkiye』by about 5:1, according to Google News hits over the past month. Even Turkey's executive branch does not seem to have settled on its final choice. As of February, Erdogan was considering dropping the diacritic mark from the u.
  Nothing official has happened when it comes to『Republic of Türkiye』yet. We'll know when it's official because the whole Turkish government, other nations, intergovernmental organizations, and news media will shift. That has not happened. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 for now. As I read from some sources (here, here and here, for instance), Turkey is registering the new name at the UN. I would switch to Option 2 when this registration will become official. P1221 (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would “registering” the name at the UN make a difference? The UN doesn’t have a function as an “official name” registry. Might as well check the registration at the International Poultry Council. DeCausa (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The UN does have this function actually, assigned to UNGEGN. Even without this, a submission to any international body, in general, would be a useful sign that the name change was serious. In line with that, I note that the International Poultry Council still refers to the country as "Turkey". CMD (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

They may well be the last hold out for the old name…UNGEGN is an “experts forum” for cartographic consistency, as I understand it. I don’t think a country can “register” their preferences with them. Basically, what Turkey has done has put in their request for what goes on the name plaque that they sit behind. DeCausa (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Some of NATO and Organisation of Turkic States seems to use this. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. Despite『Republic of Türkiye』is currently being used by the top official bodies, it has not been declared as the official name of the country. It is more of a governmental preference than an official name. Nozdref (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's more official than "Republic of Turkey". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 If Option 1 wins and Option 2 subsequently becomes registered with the UN and put into use, we can re-open this RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. why not mention the name they have chosen to use ? Article title and first mention still common name with native name mentioned.Moxy- 16:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Türkiye is already mentioned, and is the third word of the first sentence, in the article currently, and in both options. The issue isn’t about mentioning it, it’s whether, in addition to that, it should also be stated the “official name” is “Republic of Türkiye”. DeCausa (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti" Moxy- 20:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Turkey ..., officially the Republic of TurkeyorTürkiye ... not sure for infobox. Maybe Republic of Turkey / Türkiye. Beshogur (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per other users, this dictat was not a constitutional change nor a law, and seems to only apply to official organizations. Not only that, it doesn't seem to catch on outside of Turkish governmental media outlets, which seem to be obliged to follow this decree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 The Official name is Republic of Türkiye so we should use it.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Until such time as it is clear that international bodies - such as the UN - have adopted this form. Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Has been done...just waiting on UN [1] Moxy- 21:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that source doesn’t say it has been done. In fact, all the sources to date seem to say that Turkey is planning to do it with no confirmation that it has been done yet, eg this which said back in January that it was going to be done “in the coming weeks”. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

yup done all over just not at the UN yet.....Why are we waiting on the UN...is it the only source we can use? What is wrong with the constitution? Seem odd for us to wait on one single source when we have many that are much more relevent. Moxy- 22:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s not in the constitution and no one’s using it much. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't knew that Turkey's Turkish constitution talked about English name of its name. I don't think so. Also Organization of Turkic States and some NATO bodies started to use the name "Türkiye". Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. DeCausa (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 (as) Per other users mentioned the needed explanation. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 is more common in English. --Seggallion (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 for consistency. Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye), officially the Republic of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) Some1 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 per P1221. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 makes the most sense for the English wiki. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Other proposal

I think there’s an Option 3 to reflect that Erdoğan has launched a campaign to have Türkiye adopted in foreign language use even if it isn’t actually an “official name” change. I suggest adding a footnote to the words “…officially the Republic of Turkey…” in the first sentence which says:

Footnote

Beginning with a presidential circular issued in December 2021, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan launched a campaign, latterly called Say Türkiye, to have the Turkish word for the country, Türkiye, used in all languages instead of foreign language equivalents.^[1] As a result, the Turkish Foreign Ministry and some other state agencies have begun using the phrase Republic of Türkiye on the English language versions of their respective websites.^[2]

This, I think, more accurately reflects that this is about a campaign to encourage a change of usage rather than an “official” name change, which overstates what’s happening. DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That's unnecessary and UNDUE, IMHO. Turkey#Name is a more fitting place for that, not a footnote in the lead. Some1 (talk) 01:53, 23 April 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.

I see that the rfc is result. I think this should be a precedent (not sure if that's a correct word) for other Turkish government related articles. I opened a topic some while ago, but didn't take attraction.

For Turkey related articles like Grand National Assembly of Turkey, President of Turkey, etc. We have few options, should we:

• 1: add "... of TurkeyorTürkiye"
• 2: add "... of Turkey/Türkiye"
• 2: add『... of Turkey, officially the ... of Türkiye』(like the result of the rfc: for example President of Turkey, officially the President of Republic of Türkiye.

Beshogur (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In RfC we voted that『Republic of Türkiye』is the new formal name so it should replace "Republic of Turkey" everywhere, even in combined terms like President of Republic of Türkiye. Chrz (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The name thing is just nasty far right erdoganism, like saying no-one can call England 'Angleterre', or 'Inglaterra' or any normal word in a non-English person's own language, including the Turkish 'İngiltere'. Middle More Rider (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

First he isn't "far right", secondly stop accusing people of Erdoganism. , like saying no-one can call England 'Angleterre' perhaps check all the listed sources in the rfc. Beshogur (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If I don't say what this is, the whole world can still it, those of us countries who have free unbanned media, anyway.

Middle More Rider (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW close and formally recommend a minimum 1-year moratorium on the topic of name change for this country. Also informally recommend possibly topic banning TurkicEtymology for persistent bludgeoning, Wp:Great wrongs-righting and personal attacks Dronebogus (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Turkey → Türkiye – I know that there is multiple RM after the discussion for keeping the name of the article. I did not give any opinion as it was a WP:COMMONNAME and of course, WP:TOOSOON at that moment. The reason for WP:TOOSOON is no longer effective however, in these couple of months, situation went tilted. In the draw for the UEFA Euro 2024 qualifying, UEFA used『Türkiye』as the country name, see Group D in the official website. But I opted to keep riding the fence at that moment. However, after Riot Games' esports organizers decided to merge Europe, CIS, Turkey and MENA into a single region, as describe Turkey as『Türkiye』in the explanation video, I figured that WP:COMMONNAME may not be an effective reason. So I tried to find the number of English news in Google regarding the Caucasus country. There is 123,000,000 and 118,000,000 results for "Turkey" and "Türkiye", meaning that the observation maybe possible. I know that there was once a discussion about naming between Myanmar and Burma. I think the issue could be taken for discussion right now after the development in these couple of months. But I need for everybody to verify any information provided for the discussion for the topic. Thank you. KyleRGiggs (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't give comments for why『Türkiye』is being used internationally. That's not the main point, and I will not make RM for Turkey (bird) even a strong consensus is made for『Türkiye』topic. But I have to point out that WP:COMMONNAME MAY NOT an appropriate reason for no move. It was only WP:TOOSOON for the 3 June 2022 discussion. KyleRGiggs (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Although there's no formal moratorium in place, there was a strong consensus half a year ago to keep the page at Turkey, and there's a warning on this talk page against repeating the move request. Any request would have to provide overwhelming evidence of『Türkiye』being the common name, and yet the numbers you provided above show it's still less common than "Turkey". O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think WP:COMMONNAME leads this country being mainly called "Turkey", that's why I made this discussion. That's why I used to search the number of news in English by Google, and you are just ignoring my POV. KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Besides, it has been "Note that repeated requests to change this can be disruptive unless new information is provided, and your edit may be summarily removed." You are just ignoring my new information I provided. Do you think your stance not being WP:DE instead? At least the following editor - despite being an IP editor, without any right to vote, shows his counterargument to show how WP:COMMONNAME still refers the country being "Turkey". Where is your counterargument? Are you referring to my POV suggesting the common name being disputed? Seems not at all. KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  An IP editor has the same "right to vote" as a registered user. Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Do we really need to have this discussion every month?

First of all, international organisations such as UEFA almost always use the official name. FIFA also uses Côte d'Ivoire, but we continue to refer to the country as Ivory Coast on Wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME, as Ivory Coast is the name most commonly used by native English speakers.

I am highly skeptical on the high number of articles using 'Türkiye', and I suspect that most of these come from TRT, which is owned by the Turkish government. No major English-language broadcaster or newspaper has switched to 'Türkiye'.

As a counterargument, I would like to bring up Google Trends, which shows that in the United States and in the UK, 'Türkiye' comprises less than 1% of search results when compared to 'Turkey' (note that only a small percentage of those searching 'Turkey' were searching for the bird, indicating that most people were searching for the country) This shows that the name used by English speakers is 'Turkey' and that 'Türkiye' is almost never used outside of international diplomacy. 89.98.237.29 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me make a counterargument for the Google Trends. Let's bring the name of Kyiv. Google Trends shows that the majority of the whole world, not only US and UK, use "Kiev" instead of "Kyiv". However, it is clearly said that we would use "Kyiv" as "Kiev" is a Russian lexicon. That mean Google Trends doesn't mean anything. KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Move turkey (bird)toturkey. The bird is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word “turkey”. Shwcz (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Not a valid vote for this RM. If that were the reason for this RM, it would be valid simply to move this article to Turkey (country). (For clarification, I'm only responding to the argument made by Shwcz to show that it isn't a logical reason. Georgia guy (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and lock name until June 2024. This is getting seriously repetitive. WP:COMMONNAME still very much applies, I do not see any major news organisations in the English-speaking world using anything but Turkey. We have had this discussion more than 20 times already and it is getting seriously disruptive to focus all energy on this, hence my suggestion to lock the current name until summer 2024, to avoid having to go through this over and over and over. Jeppiz (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I know that there is multiple RM... and yet you plowed ahead anyways. Consensus is firm that Turkey is the common name in the English-speaking Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. BBC,[2] CNN,[3] NY Times,[4] WaPo,[5] The Times,[6] NBC,[7] ABC,[8] CBC,[9] Chicago Times,[10] etc etc the list goes on of mainstream hiqh quality reliable sources in the English-language continue to use Turkey. The change has made no impact. Epitome of WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy close per wp:commonname. Discussed like 100s of times. Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• procedural close while i support the move in principle there is no point doing this every month without anything having changed since the close of the last RM—blindlynx 18:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, which clearly favours the status quo. No objection to a moratorium to allow things to change before we discuss this again, given the frequency with which it is proposed. Kahastok talk 18:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom, not sure why NAMECHANGES applies so quickly to people and so slowly to countries. If a country decides to change their name, I think it should be respected and honored. And we made the Kiev to Kyiv move (which I also supported) despite the overwhelming consensus at the time using the anterior Russian spelling.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Nearly the entirety of WP:NAMECHANGES explains why. It's based on the extent to which the changes are adopted. If, out in the world, a new name is adopted quickly, then the name here changes quickly. If, out in the world, it's adopted slowly, then the name here changes slowly. If countries' name changes are more slowly adopted out in the world than people's name changes are, then they're reflected here more slowly. Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  So, you're willing to ignore the context of the political landscape? Ignore that Ukraine is a white country and Türkiye is a Muslim country? There is a very clear ongoing bias in most of the media to paint Türkiye in a bad light. They basically immediately did for Ukraine's cities what they're still refusing to do for Türkiye. They refer to IS/ISIS by its name in titles of news articles but for the PKK they always label them as "Kurdish groups/fighters/militias" even though they're officially designated as terrorists by the US and Europe, there is a very clear intent behind this. What they do there which is racially motivated should not impact what we do here unless we carry that same racism. TurkicEtymology (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  “White” is a racial classification (and a poorly defined one at that), “Muslim” is a religious affiliation. I thought Turks were “white”, or at least “olive”? Dronebogus (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Where is the relevance in that? My point was clearly that one is seen favourably and the other isn't. Was I incorrect about anything? TurkicEtymology (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  You’re not even wrong Dronebogus (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  What I'm willing to do is follow Wikipedia's guidelines, the applicable ones being WP:NAMECHANGES, which you've already pointed out, and WP:COMMONNAME. If you're going to argue against the guidelines, the place to do that as at the talk page of the pages where those guidelines are located. This is not the place to do that. Largoplazo (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  By the way, ISIL is entirely Muslim and most Kurds are Muslim (and the PKK is predominately Muslim). In addition, the Czech Republic is majority Christian but mainstream sources haven't picked up on the newer name Czechia and, accordingly, Wikipedia hasn't either, regardless of the many participants in the many debates on that issue complaining that Czechs are being disrespected. Conversely, regarding a majority-Black country in Africa, we picked up on the change from Swaziland to Eswatini within six months. So your argumentation based on racism (and religionism—you know that Muslims aren't a race, right?)—is rather disconnected from the actual circumstances. Largoplazo (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Czechia is mostly atheist. --Silesianus (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  PKK are openly communist, atheist and far-left. Their leader's writings were negative of Islam. Yes, I know Muslims are not a race... that doesn't make what I wrote invalid. White people who are predominately non-Muslim are viewed favourably, and Muslims aren't. Does the comparison have to be of same classification? Why? I'd argue Türkiye is far more recognisable as the country to most than Czechia is. There has been a much bigger push for its change than the latter's. Thank you for mentioning Eswatini, I checked and most mainstream media (including from outside the US and Europe but still written in English) still use Swaziland over their new name, which points out hypocrisy even more. TurkicEtymology (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Trying to restate what you've argued: That some non-white or non-Western country names are slower to change than some white, Western country names is evidence that the media and/or Wikipedia are biased against non-white, non-Western people. That some non-white and/or non-Western country names are faster to change than some white, Western country names is also evidence that the media and Wikipedia are biased against non-white, non-Western people. And when the contradiction in this is pointed out to you, you manage to come up with a barrage of non-germane reasons and rationales invented ad hoc by which you satisfy yourself that your self-contradiction is perfectly sensible. So many knots, I'm not even going to try to disentangle them. Largoplazo (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. I am talking about the mainstream's bias against Muslims, not particularly Wikipedia's. 2. You listed 1 outlier, that's hardly the rocksolid contradiction to my statements you think it is. In the end, it's contradictory to the results of previous threads on this topic. TurkicEtymology (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support and move Turkey (disambiguation) here per previous arguments. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. When Britannica moves their article, that will be a good indication that the common English name has shifted. And I propose a 1-year moratorium on any more requested moves. 5 RMs in less than a year is way too many. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Türkiye is the name of the country in Turkish, while Turkey per se is just in English. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly support Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose we don’t call Germany Deutschland. We don’t call Wales Cymru. We don’t call Japan Nihon or China Zhongguo. All are perfectly valid native names but rarely used in English. Dronebogus (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't call them by those names because those are not the official names as per the UN official members list, plus none of their leaders request us to do so, nor are there any big public movements to change the anglicized versions of their names for example, to their original names in their native language. Your argument is like saying we don't give aid to Russia so why give aid to Ukraine? It's completely lacking in context. When you meet somebody foreign, don't you at least try to pronounce and spell their name correctly? It's respectful to do so, the same principle should apply to a country's name, at least in formal settings, especially when it is requested by us and made official. Other countries have economical reasons to not change their name, but Türkiye has economical reasons TO change its name. TurkicEtymology (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West officially changed is name to Ye, but his article is still Kanye West because hardly anyone calls him Ye at the moment. Dronebogus (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How is that a fair comparison? Is the adoption rate even close to being the same? I'd like to understand why mainstream media is the go-to source over government institutions. TurkicEtymology (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the adoption rate is not particularly similar - in that Ye is rather more widely adopted than Türkiye.

To explain the policy, we prefer mainstream media over government institutions because we name articles based on common names used in the real world instead of official names used only in government. This is because, where a common name exists, it tends to be - by some distance - the name that best meets our naming criteria of recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency. In this case, Turkey is far more natural and far more recognisable to English speakers than Türkiye.

You claim that this is circular, that Wikipedia influences common usage. But even if this is true, so what? I've seen this argument in several different contexts - this is the second time I've seen it in less than a week - and the problem is that you can't get between Wikipedia influences the common nametoWikipedia should change the name of its article without going through Wikipedia should campaign for a change in common usage. And campaigning for a change in common usage is something we are not allowed to do per WP:NPOV.

You claim this is racism and Turkophobia, but this is inaccurate and inappropriate, and does your argument no good. It might easily be considered a personal attack on other editors. We apply this same rule to all countries and all places, no matter where they are. If and when mainstream English-language media sources from English speaking countries start systematically using Türkiye outside the context of the name change, then we can start having a serious conversation. This is the sort of level of adoption that we require - and have required - in every other case. But there's no evidence that this has happened here. Kahastok talk 20:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

After the official change at the UN, Macedonia changed to North Macedonia in the mainstream media and then in Wikipedia. But when the mainstream media refuses to do the same for Türkiye, Wikipedia does not question it. I know I am just discussing the unfair nature of the situation so I'll try to discuss each point of the naming criteria.

Recognisability, I don't think this is an issue at all and actually does a lot to improve disambiguation. When people see Türkiye, they think of the country immediately, when they see Turkey, they think of two or more things. I think the number of people who see the name Türkiye and don't know it's the country is extremely low. Naturalness, it is very similar to the anglicised version and people typing "Turkiye" would easily find the page on any search engine. The『ü』is hardly an issue, two dots don't make it any more difficult or unnatural to read. English has 20 vowel sounds in total, more than most languages which would find this adoption harder, so even speaking it isn't an issue. Precision, well it's the official name so it doesn't get any more precise than that. Concision, it's only 1 letter and 1 syllable longer, that's not a bad trade-off. Consistency, it's less consistent but for those people actually interested in Türkiye and its Wiki page it would be more consistent.

I believe in recognisability and precision it wins, with half a point in naturalness, and loses in concision and consistency. So that would be even. In which case, I believe the fact that official institutions use the official name should be the deciding factor. TurkicEtymology (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If you dislike the existing guidelines because you feel that public use should be discounted, because you think "naturalness" and "consistency" should be primary considerations, etc., the place to make your case is on the talk pages belonging to the pages where those guidelines appear, not on a talk page like this where they're merely meant to be applied. It's like when someone's in court after being charged with a legal infraction. Debating the court over what the law should be is going to get you at most a reprimand for wasting the court's time. Largoplazo (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right but you replied to a comment I made which discusses the topic within Wikipedia's naming criteria. TurkicEtymology (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong support #1 Mainstream media shouldn't be the determining factor because it is dependant on adoption in places such as Wikipedia, so Wikipedia is being a paradoxical obstacle to that. #2 Mainstream media holds an easily observable bias against Türkiye in political contexts such as its name change, this can be seen in the BBC's video explaining the officially recognised name change by the UN and other organisations and yet continues to call them by the formally recognised name. #3 The same dignity, honour and respect should be applied to nations which is applied to, for ex., the LGBT community. If an LGBT person changes their sex and their name, their page may be immediately updated without needing widespread adoption. Even in Türkiye's case, it has very high adoption already as pointed out above, so is the threshold 50% or 99%? Who decides that? #4 If Turkophobia wasn't a thing, the name change would have already happened. #5 North Macedonia. Need I say more about this one?... TurkicEtymology (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• If Erdogan is in charge of world languages,

English can't call Turkey, Turkey

France can't call it Turquie

Germany can't call it Türkei

Italy can't call it Turchia

Esperanto speakers can't call it Meleagro

Hindu people can't call it Tarkee

Wales can't call it Twrci

Etc. I have never heard of any other country behaving like Turkey. According to The Jerusalem Post "Despite many within the country still referring to it as Turkey". Middle More Rider (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed there are many countries that have acted like, and will likely continue to act like this. And also, even if this article is moved - not saying it should be, see my opinion below - it will not imply that people must not refer to the country as Turkey; this is indeed, simply the move request of a Wikipedia article, so that isn't the question being asked. The question being asked is whether by Wikipedia policies, the situation going on in Turkey merits a name change, not what our own opinions on it are. Uness232 (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not analogous to city name transliteration adjustments such as Peking → BeijingorKiev → Kyiv. Occasionally, a country name change (Burma → Myanmar) becomes accepted in the English-speaking world, but much more often (East Timor → Timor-LesteorIvory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire) it is not accepted. Also, no country's WP:COMMONNAME in the English-speaking world is rendered with accents or diacritics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Google Trends showed that only Ivory Coast searched "Côte d'Ivoire". I did not talk about Ivory Coast. But others of your examples are all in doubt. KyleRGiggs (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  N grams shows that 'Côte d'Ivoire' overtook 'ivory coast' around ten years ago [11]—blindlynx 15:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  This has been thoroughly discussed in multiple RMs or Ivory Coast. English news sources still prefer "Ivory Coast" while official government and academic sources tend to prefer Côte d'Ivoire. But this is not the time or place to open up that discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME-based arguments above. Not much else to say about this, other than the fact that we may need a formal moratorium for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uness232 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you refer to its behaviour? This immediately seems like you're approaching the topic from a parental and authoritarian POV, while simultaneously making Türkiye sound authoritarian. The government and many of its people are simple asking others to use the native name in formal situations, not trying to force everyone to use one over the other in everyday speech. You should look at the topic from a Turk's perspective too before taking a selfish one, many Turkish people are bullied in schools and harassed online over this. The same dignity and honour that is placed on people such as Caitlyn Jenner on her page, should be applied to nations. It is hypocritical to do so for any other page, including other countries, but not for Türkiye. Leading me to believe many of the opposition's arguments stem from racism and Turkophobia. TurkicEtymology (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It is strange to hear that, especially as I think that I often tend to have a more pro-Turkey stance than most of the editors here. The issue in this RM, however, is not one of personal opinion, but rather of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME. Not much discussed here can override the rules outlined in that policy. Uness232 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per DeCausa, who correctly points out that mainstream hiqh quality reliable sources in the English-language continue to use Turkey. That is the determining factor. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why is mainstream media, no matter of what quality or reliablity, the determining factor over the United Nations, nearly every government institution around the world (in English), huge global events such as in football and Esports, etc.? By your logic, if every news outlet suddenly calls Türkiye Rainbowzebraland then Wikipedia will also make the switch despite the absurdity? Was changing Caitlyn Jenner's page also dependant on others and not herself, otherwise Wikipedia would have stubbornly kept the page as her previous name? If you will reply, please have an actual counterargument and not just repeat what you wrote. TurkicEtymology (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  You need to read WP:COMMONNAME to understand. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this thread with policy-free comments and, more importantly, stop making personal attacks accusing other editors of racism and Turkophobia.DeCausa (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Can we close this as WP:SNOW and WP:DENY because TurkicEtymology is clearly trying to use this thread as a WP:GREATWRONGS platform? Dronebogus (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  And also lock this topic for at least a year? Dronebogus (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  I see no need for that. It's reasonable to assume that the closer will be clever enough to give TurkicEtymology's comments the weight they merit, given the policies that apply. Kahastok talk 19:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Which are none? Dronebogus (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  "Was changing Caitlyn Jenner's page also dependant on others and not herself..."

  You should see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  DeCausa did not say "mainstream media" which implies news outlets. Instead, DeCausa said mainstream hiqh quality reliable sources in the English-language. In addition to coverage in high quality reliable news outlets, also included are high quality, reliable English language books written about the country, especially those written by academic experts, and those published by university presses in the English speaking world. That would include peer reviewed English language academic articles published in respected academic journals. That does not include anything published by international organizations that Turkey/Türkiye is a member of, because those are not independent sources on this matter. I see no evidence whatsoever that Türkiye is the common name in high quality, independent English language sources. Wikipedia is a following indicator, not a leading indicator. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and @DeCausa's survey of the usage in mainstream high-quality English-language media above. –Austronesier (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Any organization in which a country participates is not an independent source as called for by WP:COMMONNAME. UEFA or any other organization of which a country is a member or in whose activities a country participates is mostly going to be calling a country whatever that country's representatives in the organization or event are calling themselves in the organization's or event's working languages, thereby disqualifying such usage from being considered when weighing common usage. In other words, the UN doesn't count. UEFA doesn't count. The Olympics don't count. Etc. Largoplazo (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody counts except the mainstream media, right? A lot of you have been citing the WP:COMMONNAME incorrectly. It says English mainstream media is only "useful" in making a decision, not the deciding factor. TurkicEtymology (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  TurkicEtymology, you are the editor in this conversation who is pushing the notion of "mainstream media" so hard. You are the only editor who is bludgeoning the discussion. You are the only editor who is accusing other people of discrimination against Muslims and your country. I have nothing at all against your clearly very important country with a long and interesting history. I want plenty of encyclopedic content about this country, written using the common English language name. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and Speedy Closure of the RM per WP:SNOWBALL. In the 3 June 2022 Requested move, the community has agreed that the article should remain at Turkey and the consensus should be respected. There is nothing new that would justify making a new Requested move in such a short time after the previous one. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:04, 30 November 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.

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

• Aspendos Amphitheatre.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I Need To Edit Sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyJustARandomPerson (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done, national emblem of Turkey is not the country's coat of arms and we cannot present it as such. -Vipz (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• FbG VprUEAA1m6M.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Um Turkey’s Unofficial Emblem Became Real — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyJustARandomPerson (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to include the proposed language in the lead and body of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Zero mention in this article about the deepening authoritarianism.^[1]

Should the article mention the democratic backsliding that has happened in the past dacade refering to the country as a competitive authoritarian regime ?^[2][3]Moxy- 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Lead the political system has been dominated by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, under whom the country has experienced democratic backsliding^[4] and a shift towards a hybrid authoritarianism system competitive authoritarian system.^[5]

Body Turkish politics has become increasingly associated with democratic backsliding, being described as a competitive authoritarian system,^[6][7][8] with the government restricting fundamental freedoms and compromising the rule of law.^[9]

Sources

Survey

Support (RFC proposer) sources are clear.Moxy- 16:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Support, this is an important development and it's strange that currently the article does not discuss it at all. Alaexis_¿question? 07:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hard Oppose The proposed wording is wrong on so many levels:

1. It fails WP:V. For example, you mention a hybrid authoritarianism system, while the source doesn't use the word hybrid or anything similar.

2. Factuals errors like political system has been dominated by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Opposition parties took control of the power of the biggest cities in the latest local elections. Erdogan's party doesn't even hold a majority in the parliament. If the nationalist MHP (junior partner in government alliance) decides to switch sides, then the opposition will hold majority in the parliament and can politically tie the hands of the President (because parliamentary laws prevail over presidential decrees) and even fire him by tomorrow by deciding for new presidential elections. Some 'dominance', lol.

3. Inconsistenties with other countries. We didn't see any mentioning of Democratic backsliding in the United States during Trump era (and after) in the lead of USA article.

4. Lacks MOS:LINKCLARITY. For example, you shouldn't link restricting fundamental freedoms and compromising the rule of law both to Human rights in Turkey.

5. In addition to point 4: This body already has a section called "Human rights". How did you missed it?

6. Fails WP:BALANCE. It speaks of restricting fundamental freedoms but it doesn't speak about the areas where fundamental freedoms have been improved.

7. Fails WP:BALASP for MOS:LEAD. The proposed lead is highlighting a minor aspect compared to the subject. The subject summarizes centuries of information ranging from ancient Greeks, Mongols, Ottomans to modern Turks, only to cut to a specific topic about Erdogan. Per WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia is written with an aim toward a long-term view, not from election cycle to election cycle.

8. It contains WP:OR. What even is hybrid authoritarianism? It links to Hybrid regime, however that article defines it as a mix of authoritarianism and democracy, not hybrid authoritarianism. Randam (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(1) I haven't checked the refs, but the hybrid regime article has three citations for Turkey being an example.^[1][2][3] (2) There are many potential refs for Erdogan's domination.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} (3) Trump was the president for 4 years; Erdogan has been PM and president for two decades. (6) See WP:FALSEBALANCE BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Not even one source to rebut the sources here ..so lets cover the POV above.

(1)Even with all the sources to read its clear some are not aware that "Hybrid regime" "hybrid democracies" or "competitive authoritarianism" are somewhat synonyms...have added sources at the main article and have lesen the academic term in proposal. Hybrid regime

(2) (6) People have been trying to update the article here for years to no avail..blame it on national ppride I guess as some will not admit some basic facts "political system has been dominated by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan" "Turkey's local elections were not free or fair". openDemocracy. 2019-06-11. Retrieved 2022-11-16........Tisdall, Simon (2018-04-19). "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: a dictator in all but name seeks complete control". the Guardian. Retrieved 2022-11-16.

(3) As for USA there is an ongoing talk Talk:United States#Edits by KlayCax but falls under WP:WHATABOUT.

(4) As for restricting fundamental freedoms and compromising the rule of law is a human rights issus and things are only getting worst dispite any government propaganda.

(7)Not sure how anyone can say 20 years is WP:RECENTISM but we all have our views.

(8)hybrid authoritarianism? is an academic term used to describe the country... Ip, E.C. (2019). Hybrid Constitutionalism: The Politics of Constitutional Review in the Chinese Special Administrative Regions. Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-19492-2. Retrieved 2022-11-16. formerly liberal democratic Venezuela and Turkey have slipped into hybrid authoritarianis "Turkey has been described by academics as a hybrid electoral-authoritarian country for years Esen, Berk; Gumuscu, Sebnem (2016-02-19). "Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey". Third World Quarterly. 37 (9). Informa UK Limited: 1581–1606. doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1135732. ISSN 0143-6597. Since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002 Turkey has undergone double regime transitions. First, tutelary democracy ended; second, a competitive authoritarian regime has risen in its stead. Moxy- 16:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is the reality of Turkish politics, as supported by sourcing. ValarianB (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Of course it should. Actually, the main article on Erdogan covers the current position much more effectively, with strong sourcing, and elements could be repurposed here. KJP1 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support; sources seem to be quite clear despite being potentially disagreeable, and this wording, unlike the one which had been adopted before this RfC, is accurate and measured. This is despite the fact that I do believe there is an issue with WP:BIAS in many of the sources: see, for example formerly liberal democratic Venezuela and Turkey have slipped into hybrid authoritarianism completely ignores the Kemalist practice of tutelary democracy (and, to be fair, its many Venezuelan analogues) for its rhetorical goals. Some (Since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002 Turkey has undergone double regime transitions. First, tutelary democracy ended; second, a competitive authoritarian regime has risen in its stead.) do indeed acknowledge the AK Parti ending the practice in its first ten years. This makes me think that there might be certain types of wording that better acknowledge the changes made by the early, 'liberal' AKP in terms of dismantling military control over politics, expanding minority rights, despite its agenda of expanding personal power. As long as the absence of this rhetoric in the current RfC is not an obstacle to further additions to content in this regard, however, this is a necessary change.Uness232 (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Important to resist the veto of nationalist editors. As KJP1 says, use the Erdogan article's language as a base, if it enjoys consensus. It seems the specialists see Turkey as a case of "competitive authoritarianism", not full autocracy. Perhaps it's more open than during the era of the generals, but obviously less so than 20 years ago, the last time there was a full transfer of power. Hence "democratic backsliding" is clearly correct and absolutely needs mentioning. Rollo (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have no objection to mentioning the democratic backsliding that has occurred in the nation. This has been a topic covered in media and academia for some time now and to ignore it would be dishonest. However, calling it a competitive authoritarian system makes implications about the political and government institution of the nation itself. As has been mentioned elsewhere, Erdogan’s AK Parti has lost key elections and his own hold on the Parliament is weak. It isn’t like, for example, Syria which holds elections that are otherwise shams as the only opposition present are literally approved by the ruling party. At the end of the day, Erdogan can be voted out and the weakening hold of the AK Parti shows that it’s possible. While there is democratic backsliding happening in Turkey, it is still inherently a democratic nation (definitely more democratic than it was during most of the 20th century). Someone mentioned the US as an example and I agree with this; the US under Trump absolutely experienced democratic back sliding but at the end of the day he was still voted out because the nation is democratic in nature still. No one ever compared the US to a competitive authoritarian regime. Also, as has been mentioned in another vote, we shouldn’t base the entirety of the political analysis of Turkey/Türkiye on recent (I say recent because it was only a few years ago when Erdogan enjoyed a more popular reputation in the international community) perceptions of one (elected) figure. Again, while examples of democratic backsliding have occurred, Erdogan himself has not changed the system of the country to become authoritarian. Democracy is still there and he literally could be voted out. Someone may want to describe Erdogan himself as having authoritarian tendencies, similar to Trump of the USA and Bolsonaro of Brazil, but they are not reflections of the nation itself. Ultimately I oppose this RFC but mainly because I don’t agree with the entirety of the proposal as it is written. If there was a mention of the democratic backsliding without labeling Turkey as a competitive authoritarian system, I would be more likely to support that. Again, labeling Erdogan as having authoritarian tendencies is one thing (though a fair analysis would include all aspects of his long time in power, both in ways he has opened freedoms but also in ways he restricted them), but labeling the entire country as such is another. Also, to address another response on here, not everyone who opposes this is a “Turkish nationalist”. To create such a label creates bias in responses. 2601:600:8d80:28c0:dd7e:7adf:69d4:afb5 11:01, November 25, 2022

Even Turkish academics say " competitive authoritarian" like Berk Esen from Sabancı University. The field of study is so robust that specific disciplines have been researched.Esen, Berk; Gumuscu, Sebnem (11 May 2020). "Why did Turkish democracy collapse? A political economy account of AKP's authoritarianism". Party Politics. 27 (6): 1075–1091. doi:10.1177/1354068820923722. eISSN 1460-3683. ISSN 1354-0688. After decades of multiparty politics, Turkey is no longer a democracy. A theory-upending case, the country has descended into a competitive authoritarian regime under the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi—AKP), despite rising income and education levels and strong links with the West. What accounts for democratic breakdown in such an unlikely case? Instead of ideological and institutional factors, we offer a political economy account.Moxy- 16:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, most people would argue that this is exactly one of the biases of Turkish academia; simply because of the fact that not many people can engage critically with the preceding question to this one without getting in a lot of very pressing ideological issues: whether Turkey was ever a democracy, in the sense of what Erdogan has destroyed? If one answers no, this undermines a fundamental assertion of traditional Turkish nationalist ideology; that what Ataturk imagined was a liberal democratic regime. Once you read contemporary historical perspectives, such as those of Zurcher and Copeaux, you realize that the current consensus is otherwise: that the democracy that Ataturk wanted was, in effect, a tutelary and fundamentally authoritarian one. Indeed, some of the papers you cited also mention this.

This is not to say that you are wrong in including this passage. What I am saying is that in a paradoxical way, it is Turkish orthodoxy to see Erdogan as a break with the republican past, for good or bad. Uness232 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Plenty of sourcing about creeping authoritarianism. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Decent academic sourcing which, as far as I can see, meets W:DUE. Randam's comments are unfounded asssertions with a large dose of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a splash of WP:OTHERCONTENT. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in some form as it is a major national change in recent years described by plenty of reliable sources. Neutral on the placement and wording. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support If there was any doubt before, the latest events should make it clear to everyone about the state of democracy in Turkey. The Account 2 (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a mention in the lead, support adding to the body. Putting this in the lead would be a fine example of WP:RECENTISM. Yes this is true and yes it's backed up by impeccable sources, those are necessary but not sufficient for this information to be in the lead here. Turkey has had authoritarian periods in the past, in particular two coups in 1960 and 1980, and two military memoranda in 1971 and 1997; not to mention the democratic backsliding during the DP rule of the 1950s. Of these, the 1960 and 1980 coups were literally foundational events resulting in entire new constitutions (there are constitutional historians of Turkey that would argue that each of these founded a new republic by extension), and they were far more repressive periods. Obviously discussing the backsliding that's been going on since 2012 somewhere in the article is important, so I have no objection an addition in the body of the article, but the lead is not the place for this. The lead section is meant to be a very concise summary of an entire country, as such there is no room for anything but foundational events, and if these two coups are not to be discussed, democratic backsliding under Erdoğan shouldn't be either. Just because it's in the news, it doesn't mean it merits a historically undue emphasis. The one major constitutional legacy of Erdoğan's rule i.e. the change in the system of government is already mentioned, by the way. --GGT (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

After the talk above ts clear we are missing some info about the state of democracy in this country. Had to good suggestions by 2 editors willing to give solid advice. One is that info is missing and secondly that dispite many sources calling the country an "authoritarian dictatorship" thoses sources and many others discuss more about the democratic backsliding and a hybrid authoritarianism system that may or may not be on a path to a full dictatorship. Think best we deal with this by stating the current situation and by omiting the lesser view and hypitical here in this article (this is covered in other articles).Moxy- 16:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources

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.

This is to open a place for discussion of these edits [12] by @Mercresis. I have tried to engage with them in my revert, but they did not respond with anything approximating an argument, so I suppose this is me calling on others editors to comment on these changes. For convenience, here is my argument:

This is simply not true. The Jewish survivors of the Reconquista weren't from "The West", as currently understood. But even if they were, the idea that Ottoman advances in medicine (and I suppose its non-existent "advances" in printing) in the 16th century are to be credited to "the West" is very wrong and profoundly problematic.' Uness232 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No longer a dispute as they have reverted their edit, and I thank them for their understanding. Uness232 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232: What is the basis for your dispute over the printing press? From a Google search "printing press" "ottoman empire" I find

• "Jewish exiles from Spain opened Hebrew printing shops in Istanbul as early as the mid-1490s, and Jews later set up presses in Salonika, Edirne, Izmir, and Safad. A press in Armenian opened in Istanbul in 1567 and one in Greek in 1627." Ayalon, Ami, The Arabic Print Revolution: Cultural Production and Mass Readership", p. 2. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
• "The printing press was [sic] first arose in Europe in the fifteenth century. Toward the end of the century, it was brought to Istanbul by Sephardic Jews who had sought refuse in the Ottoman state. Later, the Rum (Ottoman Greeks) and Armenians established their own presses in the city, and in 1727, the first Turkish printing press was opened." "The Printing Presses of Istanbul (1453–1839" History of Istanbul from Antiquity to XXIst Century, Türkiye Diyanet Foundation Center for Islamic Studies and İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality Kültür ve Sanat Ürünleri A.Ş., 2015 (digitized in 2019).
• "The first printing press in Istanbul was established by the brothers David and Samuel Nahmias, who fled from the Iberian Peninsula to Constantinople after the expulsion of Jews in 1492 ... The brothers secured a ferman from Sultan Beyazid II sanctioning their printing activities." Palabiyik, N. (Pektaş, Nil?), The beginnings of printing in the Ottoman capital, p.13. Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları (Studies in Ottoman Science), XVI/2, 3-32, 2015.

Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: So my dispute with printing is not necessarily with the facts presented but rather their characterization. While the fact provided is true, the idea that this was an innovation that the Ottomans made use of is not. No official document of the Ottoman Empire for more than two more centuries after this would be printed, and when that innovation did happen, Ibrahim Muteferrika, an Ottoman-Hungarian, had to "reintroduce" the printing-press; this wasn't done based on models of Greeks, Armenians and therefore on Sephardic Jews. However, I understand that this is a minor concern, which is why, in my compromise, I offered to keep this while removing, in my opinion, the more problematic text on medicine and finance. So it can be reintroduced if deemed necessary, however, there might still be better ways to phrase it. Uness232 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Largoplazo (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

that user is problematic and should be banned. look his behaviour on his commons page. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 11:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This morning, I've seen that Google Maps has been started using "Türkiye", instead of "Turkey", and it is considered as a major website. However, bearing in mind that they have also been using "Czechia", instead of "Czech Republic" since years now, and the article of that country in Wikipedia is still named "Czech Republic". Is this change enough to rename the article? Most major news resources still use "Turkey". 24.133.169.172 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither Google Maps nor any other single resource is regarded as Wikipedia's naming authority. See WP:COMMONNAME for the applicable guidelines, and see the numerous discussions that have already taken place here on this subject. Largoplazo (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mercresis You are right this article certainly needs improvement. I would be interested to have a general idea of how you are improving it because I cannot really understand just by looking at the differences. As your English is very good I guess this should not be difficult for you.

Also for each of your edits please could you either mark as minor or summarize.

İyi çalışmalar Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADALT and MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, should the first sentence of the lead section present both Turkey and Türkiye, e.g. "TurkeyorTürkiye (...) is a transcontinental country..." ? This RfC is not about moving or changing the title of the article. إيان (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence should present both. The way it's done today is better than the example "TurkeyorTürkiye " as the latter is not at all common as an English name for the country. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2023 (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.

Currently, the article is mostly in American English, yet it has a notice to editors to only use British English.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just covert the remaining to American English? Additionally, there is no cultural relevance for British English in an article about Turkey.

The oldest version I could find was in American English. I don't know why and when was it decided that British English shall be the standard of choice. --Esperfulmo (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I took the time and effort to trace the article's English standard evolution, and only noticed from an old version that user:Inglok decided the article should be spelled in Oxford English, citing an edit by an anonymous user who deleted a mention of it being mostly cited from the CIA World Factbook.

It seems that someone didn't understand the difference between Oxford spelling and the traditional British spelling, and ever since people have been confusing both.

Example edits

• the first mention of any standard of English by a seemingly Turkish editor, before the Oxford English tag had been added.
• er to re
• ize to ise
• user:Marek69 decides to change the Oxford English notice to the British English notice, though they are not the same!
• EngvarB template's date updatedbyuser:Fylindfotberserk with the date updated
• another ize to ise

It seems to me that editors just decide on which English standard to be used and add warning notices that a consensus must be reached before converting to the obviously preferred standard by the overwhelming majority of the article's editors, American English, for which there has not been a discussion nor an agreement to use Oxfort or traditional British spelling.

Conclusion

• Convert the rest of the article to the predominant standard, the American spelling
• delete the warning or even replace it by American spelling, since users come and go, confused about which standard to stick to
• the majority of sources cited within the article are in American English.
• An article about Turkey has nothing to do with British English anyway, the choice for articles related to the UK, the Commonwealth, or wherever that standard prevails and is favored.

Thanks. --Esperfulmo (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Make it uniformly American spelling and remove the engvar tag. No need for a "use American English" tag. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we should remove engvar tag. Since the article is mostly in American English, this will tend to remain so. If it becomes very messy then we can revisit and add engvar tag if consensus reaches. -- nafSadh ^{did say} 22:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. This page has a moratorium on requested moves, which does not expire until 1 December. (non-admin closure) O.N.R. ^(talk) 15:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Turkey → Turkey (country) – To avoid confusion with the bird of the same name. 71.169.160.200 (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Abort Completely nonsensical. ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't how disambiguation works and there is also a 1 year moratorium on requested moves for this article. jamacfarlane (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think there is any confusion with the bird.Timur9008 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The note at the top of the article takes care of that. Largoplazo (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (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.

Would somebody with better access than I have find a MUCH better rendition of "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti", PLEASE. The current file has an annoying slur on the immediate start of the first syllable, which my brain interprets as "Chookye ...".

I cannot believe I am the only person who finds it to be a problem. 220.235.105.134 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean here by "rendition" and “slur”. Are you a native speaker? If not are you saying there is a technical problem with the recording? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mercresis You made 6 changes to the geography section and only commented one. I don’t look at this article very often and it is really wasting my time to look through the diffs. Silently undoing a change which was not vandalism is just rude. As requested more than once by myself and also by others please comment your changes. I really don’t enjoy bureaucracy but if you don’t I am pretty sure someone will make a formal complaint soon Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)