Jump to content

Talk:Turkey/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

I see that some ip or new editors are constantinly changing these articles related to Turkey, for example: Grand National Assembly of Turkey, President of Turkey, etc. We have few options, should we:

  • 1: change all of them to "... of Türkiye" (title as well)
  • 2: add "... of Turkey or Türkiye"
  • 3: add "... of Turkey/Türkiye"
  • 4: add "... of Turkey, officially the ... of Türkiye"

opinions? If someone can make this a rfc, it could be helpful. Beshogur (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:GEO, A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article. Since this article title has not changed, the default position is that we make no change to these articles.
There is an exception in MOS:GEO when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context, but this is not the case here. There are also cases where we are quoting a source where quotations should be reserved, but this is also not the case here.
If we have new editors who are continually changing articles against the MOS or consensus, there are tools we have at our disposal to resolve this. Kahastok talk 12:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Since this article title has not changed, the default position is that we make no change to these articles. But those are self referring officially as "Türkiye" at this point, that's the question. Beshogur (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I think at least this ISO_3166-2 and this Member_states_of_the_United_Nations must contain the form that is officially registered there. And it seems it checks - notice Russian Federation (no Russia even though the article IS named Russia), another examples: "Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "Cabo Verde", "Republic of Moldova", "Viet Nam" and mooore. Same with sports "Great Britain men's national ice hockey team", not United Kingdom... Unification does not reach there now, so it should not with Türkiye either. In these cases just copy what sources say, do not push the consistency too far. Chrz (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
You probably don't get my question. Those organizations call themselves like "Türkiye" as well. My question was, how the lead should be written. Beshogur (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like my question was not clear. I skipped the part of changing titles, however those various government organizations changed their name as well. Thus, this means their official names changed as well. So, my question is, how are we supposed to add "Türkiye" to the titles, see my options. Beshogur (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

To make it even clearer: Should we make our own English translations of Turkish government agencies, or should we copy whatever THEY prepared for us in English? Chrz (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Which government agency did we make our own translation for? At any rate, THEY curiously used two different transliterations there on the one page. CMD (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The official name is on the country page, that's the only location it really needs to be --Spekkios (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Just an observation: UEFA using Türkiye

I'm aware that this might just add to the pot of discussion but here goes. I notice that UEFA uses the spelling Türkiye - https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/history/teams/135--turkey/ doktorb wordsdeeds 10:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

NATO uses it as well. Beshogur (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
If the word Türkiye has started to be used in international usage, it is necessary to make the necessary arrangements here as well. Jelican9 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Ukraine petitioned the Wikimedia Foundation to change Kiev to Kyiv in 2015. The consensus to switch to the latter on English Wikipedia wasn't made until 2020.
These things take time. Frevangelion (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That's a bit weird, isn't it? If you look at the UEFA list of teams they use the English name for every other team, but the Turkish name for Turkey. They don't call Italy "Repubblica Italiana" or Germany "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", for example. I'm sure there's a logical explanation but I'm unsure what it is! Black Kite (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps because Germany and Italy have not asked for their countries to be known by those names, while the Türkiye government has? It adds evidence to those who use real world usage as reason for Wikipedia to change article titles or the opening paragraph. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
NATO and UEFA adopting this so quickly is a sign of wide international acceptance to the English use of Türkiye. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Not really, no. It is common for these sorts of organisations to adapt to these sorts of requests as soon as they are made. In fact, it is somewhat surprising that the UK and US governments haven't done so yet.
If media organisations - specifically, mainstream English-speaking media outlets in English-speaking countries - start systematically using Türkiye instead of Turkey when discussing the country outside the context of the rename, then that would suggest that we might be nearing the point where a move should be taken seriously. And even then, that wouldn't necessarily mean it should happen. Kahastok talk 21:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Accusing the Turkish nation of genocide

The Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss Turkey committing Geocide against the Armenians. ValarianB (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello, I'm a Turk. On every Wikipedia page I look at on behalf of my country, I come across false information that my country committed a "genocide". If you are wondering who committed genocide, I want you to come to Turkey, take a tour in Eastern Anatolia and take a look at the traces of Turks massacred by the Armenians and the burned mosques there. If the Turks were so bad towards the Armenians, millions of citizens of Armenian origin would not be living in my country right now. If you are people who are so sensitive to deaths, I want you to write the massacre of Armenians against Azerbaijanis on their Wikipedia page. I would like to add that there are graves of Turks massacred by Armenians in Turkey, Samsun and Eastern Anatolia. I would like to add that the war in 1915 was mutual and that such a "defense" method was applied because the Armenians occupied our lands, it was not only the Armenians who were killed. The world's leading history professors also confirm what I have said. Please do not accuse my people of unsubstantiated or one-sided information. You can't talk about them so "unique", say they're perfect, and accuse my nation of something like that. With love. Esraspears (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Re "the Armenians occupied our lands": Do you mean lands that were already Armenian when the Seljuks arrived in the 11th century?
Regarding the revisions your requesting: On Wikipedia we go by what's reported in reliable sources. Without judging the validity of what you're saying, I will note that you've given us only your own view, your own understanding of the facts, appeals to emotion, and a vague mention of "the world's leading history professors" without identifying any of them. Largoplazo (talk) 12:07, 25 July 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.

Suggested Edit

There is a typo on the page here: ″Turkey has the second-largest standing military force in NA

TO, after the United States, with an estimated strength of 890,700 military as of February 2022.[223] Turkey is one of five NATO member states which are part of the nuclear sharing policy of the alliance, together with Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.[224] A total of 90 B61 nuclear bombs are hosted at the Incirlik Air Base, 40 of which are allocated for use by the Turkish Air Force in case of a nuclear conflict, but their use requires the approval of NATO.[225]" On3iropolos (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

The Turkish name of the country in the lead should be in a footnote, similar to Belarus' lead.

Current lead

Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti] ⓘ), is a transcontinental country located mainly on the Anatolian Peninsula in Western Asia, with a small portion on the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe.

Suggested lead

Turkey,[a] officially the Republic of Türkiye,[b] is a transcontinental country located mainly on the Anatolian Peninsula in Western Asia, with a small portion on the Balkan Peninsula in Southeast Europe.

Thanks. 12u (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you you believe that would be better? Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: Thanks for asking. The current lead is too in-depth about the native name and takes up a lot of unnecessary space, especially on mobile devices. I have noticed that keeping the native name of the country in footnotes is becoming more of a common practice on WP, for example in Belarus which I mentioned earlier, but also Norway for instance. By putting this information in a footnote, we are able to keep the information (nothing is removed), yet the introduction of the article will be easier to read and focus on more important information. 12u (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: It's been almost a week. Would it be possible to perform the edit, or are there any arguments against doing so? 12u (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, sorry. Your explanation makes sense, certainly, go ahead and make the changes. Largoplazo (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
No need to apologize :) I have made the change now. 12u (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije].
  2. ^ Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti] ⓘ.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2022

The data figures for ethnic makeup on the infobox are incompatible to the source. The source (CIA World Factbook) says 6-11% for other ethnic groups but infobox says 7-12%. Hasancelikbilek35 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you add the source? Thanks. LisafBia6531 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 06:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Hasancelikbilek35: It appears that LisafBia6531 nor Padgriffin misread your request. You said that there's already a source and that the information shown is different from what that sources says. You were correct that it's already sourced.
However, that sources does say 7-12%, not 6-11%, so I don't know why you're seeing 6-11%. The infobox does match the existing source. Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
It's the webarchive version of the source. The CIA World Factbook page is updated after the calculation error. Because it must be 100 - (19 + [70-75]) = [6-11] Hasancelikbilek35 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 Done Ah, I see. Someone had archived it instead of noticing that they'd just changed "turkey" to "turkey-turkiye" in the URL. I've altered the ref to point to the live site, which does still show 2016 figures for this, but has indeed changed them to read "6-11%'. Updated. Largoplazo (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thanks, mate Hasancelikbilek35 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Updating the lead

I see more and more articles mentioning the country as Türkiye. (For example UN, NATO, World Bank, FIFA, Fitch credit ratings, Moody's various non-Turkish news sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), [8] just to name a few)

The lead needs to be updated to reflect the fact that the country is called in two ways: Turkey and Türkiye.
Just to be clear, I'm talking not talking about the official name "Republic of Türkiye" but about the name "Türkiye".
See lead of Czech Republic and Kyiv. Therefore, to maintain same the format, I suggest:

Thanks. -Randam (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

Remove the sentence "It was also the first gay pride in the Middle East and the Balkans." That particular claim is not corroborated by the linked source, and is predated by Tel Aviv Pride. Cachedio (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

Add Turkey's motto: "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk". Theasoppy (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
It appears that it isn't Turkey's motto per se but it's a maxim of Kemal Atatürk, "Ne mutlu Türk'üm diyene", and we've got a sourced article about it, How happy is the one who says I am a Turk. For example, this. Per the article, the expression is the official Student Oath, but that's all it says about its status today.
Also (digressing a bit here), it seems (from at least one discussion on the matter as well as my elementary knowledge of Turkish grammar) that the translation is wrong. It's a translation of the same sentence but with the final "e" removed. The final "e" makes the "diyene" ("the one who says") dative rather than nominative. As someone in the discussion suggests, if we think of "ne mutlu" as a fixed expression meaning something like "Cheers to" or "Here's to", then it's like "Here's to the one who says 'I am a Turk.'" Of course, I will yield to Turkish-English bilinguals on this matter.
Even if the translation is correct it requires quotes to avoid ambiguity, as it isn't somebody else saying, about me, that I am a Turk, but me saying "I am a Turk". To avoid the ambiguity it should be written "How happy is the one who says 'I am a Turk.'" Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Procedular close. Per multiple past consensuses. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC) (closed by non-admin page mover)

The term "Türkiye" is becoming more common, not the name with the bird. 2600:1700:6180:6290:5010:9EB9:D3A7:DB33 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 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.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2022

The GDP Nominal is Wrong, The 2021 GDP was 815 Billion Dollars According to The World Bank

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=TR

No Further Data Of 2022 Were Officially Published And The Estimate Is Very Very Unreasonable Considering Turkey Has One Of the Fastest Growing Economies, Experts Expect A Rise Of Around 3% In The Economy, So My Suggestion Is That Either You Change The GDP Nominal To “815 Billion $ (2021)” Or a More Reasonable Estimate, Thanks. HusCch (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel a bit unsure as the other source is of the International Monetary Fund (also prominent) and those numbers of a growing economy can be correct knowing of the devaluation of the lira of more than 100% within the last year. Maybe Turkish Gov. POV?, not that POV is wrong, but maybe in that case a more qualified opinion would be helpful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The IMF indicated about 806 for 2021 GDP which is much closer to the proposed 815 number put forth by TWB, also for 2021. However the number currently cited in the article is the 2022 estimate. This type of change represents a decision to use the older 2021 estimates rather than those for 2022. It may be okay but it's the type of thing that should reach consensus here first. --N8wilson 🔔 13:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Primary language

Turkish is not the predominant language although Turkey has minorities and respects them and also is open to welcome everyone. The country has one official language and it is Turkish. 2003:C9:F15:9B00:EDCF:B4D1:A7C4:7FDD (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

According to [9](page 19), as of 2006 Turkish was the mother tongue of 84.6% of the people of Turkey, and 87.5% used it as a daily language. Seems predominant to me. Have the figures changed much since then? Largoplazo (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Picture of president + main opposition leader

@Randam: actually you should've opened this thread. Can you show me a single example where opposition leaders are equally placed with the president on politics section? Beshogur (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(Let me start by thanking you on taking the initiative to start this talk.)
1) IMO it's not relevant to show another example, because every format on wikipedia was once a first. See it as pioneering if you need. It's also irrelevant, because I could have given orders to a friend to make a similar change on a article with low traction or in which people didn't care, let's say Cambodia or Botswana. Then I would have said "Look, they have it in Cambodia and Botswana. Case closed."
2) I also disagree with the term "equally" placed. Putting pictures next to each other doesn't make them equal, just like putting one above the other doesn't make one better. In South Korea, the President and Prime Minister are next to each other and they are anything but equal. South Korean president is both head of state and head of government.
3) What is relevant is that the picture is mentioned in the text. Which is the case here.
4) It also helps elobrate the Turkish political dynamics. That in Turkey there is constantly an organized opposition to the government and that Turkey is not a one-party dictatorship like China, like some people on the internet think. That elections matter. --Randam (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Well PM and President are equal, because they have tasks by ruling the country, while the main opposition leader is mere a main opposition leader. I think you could put him somewhere, but placing equally is simply absurd. I would like to hear other people as well. Beshogur (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I also feel that the suggested double picture gives undue prominence to Kılıçdaroğlu. His picture could be placed at the third paragraph (describing the multi-party system) or the fourth (where he is mentioned). --T*U (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. While it is true that each article has it's own consensus and what happens in other country articles doesn't have to be followed here (per Randam), this article should be the last to give that sort of prominence to the opposition leader given Recep Tayyip Erdoğan#Authoritarianism. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Türkiye

@ValarianB: @Spekkios: I would like to ask, do not change such thing without a consensus. We discussed the lead several times. Yet Turkey calls it officially "Republic of Türkiye" and had been submitted to the UN, and you both trying to restore the old name, which isn't used anymore since months. This is beyond disruptive, and edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Black Kite: Please check previous rfc, the main reasons were "name change not done by the UN yet". However this changed (see examples above) and Ivory Coast example (Republic of Côte d'Ivoire). You're reverting it back to wrong version, without checking that this lead had remained for a while. Beshogur (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is here. Unless I am mistaken, the consensus has not changed --Spekkios (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you see the closing reason? Beshogur (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
"Among the cited arguments" is not the same as "the only cited argument". --Spekkios (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
What's your reasoning for the official name change then? You say wp:commonname, nobody's changing wp:comonname. Beshogur (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Beshogur, what's your definition of "official name" for the purposes of the English translation in the first sentence of country articles? DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Official name that the country defines itself in English language texts. Otherwise the "officially" has no purpose. Regarding the use "Türkiye" alone beside, Turkey. Turkish news agencies, and particular supranational organizations that Turkey is part of it uses that as well in favor of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you break that down for me? "that the country defines itself in English language texts". what exactly does that mean? How does "the country" do that? Is it by law, for instance? And also including "news agencies" needs explanation. "news agencies" are mostly private commercial organisations or is that not the case in turkey? And "supranational organizations that Turkey is part of". What if they are different to what is "officially" used within the country? the reason I'm asking these questions is to identify what you consider to be the objective grounds that could apply to any country and then apply them to Turkey, rather than the other way around i.e. "this has happened in Turkey and therefore that makes it the official name". DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but my answer was pretty much clear. You could see various examples by various users as well. And some months ago you told It’s not in the constitution and no one’s using it much. No they do. Beshogur (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so you don't want to answer my questions. There's no obligation for you to do so. (By the way, that's a translation of the constitution. It's not the constitution which in law is only in Turkish). DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
And as a result the only "official" name in law and under the constitution is "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti" and nothing else. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about English right now. If your argument was correct, we wouldn't use "officially" on every single country (in case they have an alternate name). Beshogur (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
If you're not willing to engage in the central points I raised I don't see that we can have a productive discussion if we dance around the periphery only. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What are those central points. You say the official name is Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. That's simply untrue. There are English official names of every single country. We're not supposed to use Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. If that was the case, then Republic of Turkey wasn't an official name either. Beshogur (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The official name of Turkey isn't Türkiye Cumhuriyeti? What are you talking about? of course it is. It's right there in Madde 1/2 Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Because that was the concensus established by the RfC. --Spekkios (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Re read my comment please, that's not what I am saying. Beshogur (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
There was an RfC, and that stands until another RfC decides otherwise. The opinions of you or I on the issue are irrelevant when there is a consensus. --Spekkios (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Beshogur is right. The circumstances on which the consensus was reached do not apply anymore today. A lot of people who voted for "option 1" said they support "option 2" if it became the UN name, which is the case now. To say that "Republic of Turkey" is the official name is not a matter of taste or wp:commonname anymore. It's just plain wrong.
It makes no sense to cling on old consensuses when circumstances have clearly changed. I have made this case recently here without any opposition. This version is balanced. --Randam (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The circumstances have not changed. While many users cited the United Nations, that does not mean that was the only reason that concensus was reached. The RfC stands, and you cannot unilaterally override it. --Spekkios (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That may or may not be the case. Either way it needs a new RfC to establish current consensus. WP:EDITCONSENSUS is clear. "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted". The edit contrary to the RfC has been disputed and reverted so the reverted edit can only form a new consensus by means of an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Official name ≠ common name. For many countries it does equal, but in general there are exceptions.
"name change not done by the UN yet" was bad argument to begin with, an excuse. There are far better reasons why not to use Turkiye on Wikipedia (yet). For example Google news shows me 298 000 news about Tukey in the last week, 46 400 for Türkiye (and many of those are Turkish sources written in English). It is rough but fitting evaluation. Chrz (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody's changing the commonname. This is about the lede. Beshogur (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
OK then but I am not sure that anyone got that. Hence the opposition. Chrz (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Conflict

Is it Republic of Turkey (text) or Republic of Türkiye (information box)? 177.76.145.165 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

People trying to change kinda forgot the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone edit it? 177.76.145.165 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

The official name of the country has been changed to Rebublic of Türkiye. And the UN officially recognized it. Why is there still an old name controversy here? Or do the authors of Wikipedia see themselves as UN leaders? This is not my special request but wish a mistake to be corrected. If Wikipedia has the feature of being the best resource candidate in the world, we need to edit it correctly not with our greed or our hatred. Me and other users need to consider this ethical behavior. I have full faith that the wrong text will be fixed as soon as possible. Thank you! Tutsens Woman (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See all the conversations above. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This comment was made because all the above speeches were read. By doing so, someone like this only degrade the quality of Wikipedia. In NATO negotiations, Türkiye is used, not Turkey. The fact that it is used on Wikipedia does not change the truth. I did this just to fix the mistake, otherwise it is not my preference to change the people who insist on the mistake. Change or notbut in the future, if Wikipedia is closed for propaganda then you accept all responsibilities. And maybe it's about getting jail time for illegally giving people false information. Now the responsibility is yours. I did the task, the rest is up to you. Tutsens Woman (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you see the UN as the leaders of Wikipedia? They are not. They are also not the deciders of what the official name of each country is. The countries are. But, in addition, what is "officially" the name in another language isn't usually marked by a proclamation reading "This is the official name of this country in [language X]". The United States, after all, has decreed no "official" name in Setswana or Hmong. Officialness has, to some extent, to be inferred. In any event this has nothing to do with greed or hatred, so stop reading made-up negative qualities into the people here. I don't even understand how you could imagine that hate or greed—serious, greed? Is somebody making or losing money or anything else based on this decision?— have anything to do with a debate over which of two names can be construed to be "official". Largoplazo (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Countries have their official name. See this list. Countries user their name in foreign missions, and vice versa by other missions to their countries. As an example, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri is the official name for the US in Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
As this is the En.wikipedia, that is entirely irrelevant. ValarianB (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I just gave an example how foreign official names work. And I gave a link how the UK government uses them as well. Beshogur (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Official political country name in English cannot be a subject of amateur translation from source language.
It must be sourced by some kind of relevant source in English, either English authority, international authority written in English or even home authority of that country written in English.
It cannnot be translated by wikipedians word by word with dictionary in one hand! In Turkish it is "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti" and it is not relevant if "Turkish Republic" or "Republic of Turkey" is more precise translation. We do not seek translation, we seek full term for official political name. Sure, multiple authorities can bring multiple results (UK says Republic of Turkey, UN and Turkey itself say Republic of Türkiye, some may say Turkish Republic and we should either include all of these or weigh it). Chrz (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of bludgenoning a topic to death... ValarianB (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
And yet there are many people which deny such simple truths and want to express their creativity and translation skills. No translating, just copying from sources! Chrz (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Beshogur: What makes the names a country uses on its foreign embassies "official", as opposed to just being what they know their country is known by in those other countries? For example, here is the web page for the Consulate of Greece in Istanbul, naming the country, in Turkish, as "YUNANİSTAN CUMHURİYETİ" (translated, based on the conventions of Turkish grammar: "Republic of Greece"). Do you think that this amounts to Greece requesting of Turks "Even though we're Ellas, and in English we're Greece, we officially want you Turks to please call us Yunanistan"? No, that's silly, it's merely acknowledging, without creating a dispute over it, that Yunanistan what the Turks call them. Largoplazo (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a bad comparison. Every country indeed has its exonym of various countries. If Greece accepted Yunanistan Cumhuriyeti as their Turkish name, and they're fine. There shouldn't be a problem. It is similar how it is Hellenic Republic in English, not "Republic of Greece", because the Greek government prefer the first name. Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense in response to mine. I wasn't commenting on whether the naming is fine, but on the invalid supposition that the use of a particular name in another language in a particular context makes it official. Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Because diplomacy is done by "officials". It's an "official" form of communication. I can't believe that you're asking what "official" means. Beshogur (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't believe you're sticking to your overly simplistic analysis of this after I explained why it's overly simplistic. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hellenic Republic?! No way! We must change it to "Greek Republic" because we decided here on Wikipedia, that Greece is the common name, so it applies everywhere!!! Except it does not. The term "Hellenic Republic" exists indipendently as separate and official term. Chrz (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Please calm down. Beshogur (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Emblem

You can put the emblem of Turkey (red crescent and star) beside the flag, it is used on passports, IDs, Embassies… 109.233.20.2 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done no official emblem/coat per Turkish constitution. Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

The first line should read 'Turkey, officially The Republic of Türkiye, [...]', based on the recent official name change.

FWIW I think the article name should not be changed yet - cf Czechia, which is still more commonly known as the Czech Republic. 86.20.233.63 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done:. Please read the previous discussions on this topic, including the heavily trafficked one above that is still open. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting again the change of the name "Turkey"

I've read the other requests and discussions and I don't get why things get so overcomplicated. It's a simple name change that was officially accepted by UN and also most of the people even outside Türkiye. We have other examples like Iran and North Macedonia where it was no big deal at all. The word "Turkey" isn't correct anymore. You can mention that it was once called "Turkey" of course but it should finally be corrected. 79.241.112.145 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"and also most of the people even outside Türkiye"[citation needed]
"The word "Turkey" isn't correct anymore"[citation needed]
Do you have any sources to back any of this up? --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:5C59:92CF:920B:5356 (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The first one I can't of course because it is my personal observation and I understand, that these can be subjective. But to make clear, this should not be the deciding factor for the change of the article. I use multiple sources of media in multiple languages where the vast majority adopted to the new name. Global news websites and even minor websites with geography quizes did this change for the most part (sites like sporcle.com). Again, not the deciding factor but an important sidenote.
More important one is the second point that the (official) english name is simply not "Turkey" anymore. The turkish section of the UN webpage should be enough for the change: https://turkiye.un.org/en/184798-turkeys-name-changed-turkiye
Since Türkiye is an oficially recogniced memeber of the UN and the change was accepted by the UN, there should be no reason to not change it on Wikipedia. If the UN referres to them as "Türkiye" then we should too.
I want to point out again that we had similar cases. No one calls Iran "Persia" anymore. They just wanted to be named how they named themselfes in their native languange same as in this case with Türkiye. Türkiye has even more reasons to change it which are not unreasonable. Czechia did something similar but they did not indent to replace the name "Czech Republic", they just added an alternative that is shorter and easier to print on products. So both names can be used in their case. But not in this.
My proposal is to replace the word "Turkey" with "Türkiye" but to make a note that it was called "Turkey" until June 1st 2022 (it's written in the link above) 2003:C3:6F39:EB05:C082:EC92:2CDF:9EA8 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
When you opened this thread or posted your second message did a giant red notice flash up saying: "STOP. Are you about to request a change of the name of this article to Türkiye or Turkiye?Please read the discussion at Talk:Turkey/Archive_34#Requested_move_3_June_2022. The community has agreed that, at the moment, the article should remain at Turkey. Note that repeated requests to change this can be disruptive unless new information is provided, and your edit may be summarily removed." I know some IoS devices can't see it when using the app. There it is if you weren't able to see it. DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
He/She says - I've read, I bring new arguments. But as he/she can see, even inclusion of "Tükiye" as alternative name in LEDE is a giant problem.
To quickly answer: "UN official" does not mean "Wikipedia's first choice". Read all the sources you can and prove that Turkey usage has dropped significantly. Chrz (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I havent seen this red popup becaue my initial post was indeed on my mobile device. But even if i had seen it, I brought some new Information. I checked the older discussions and most of them took place earlier this year. When the official change was announced but not done yet. I have provided a Link of the official UN site with an actual date when the change took place. I do not know what else is needed? You cant go more official than the UN. As User @Chrz said Wikipedia's first choice is not UN. But why not? You can't go higher than the UN when it comes to recignition of Countries, Names etc.
Of course it will take some time until "Turkey" is not mentioned anymore by all of humanty but we have green light by none other than the UN and I think it is time to change it. For example the Council of Europe is using the changed name aswell: https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/turkiye-draft-criminal-provision-on-false-or-misleading-information-interferes-with-freedom-of-expression-says-venice-commission
Therefore, I still have my proposal of something along the way like this:
Türkiye (Turkey before June 2022, Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti [ˈtyɾcije dʒumˈhuːɾijeti] (listen))
I don't know how exactly it sould be implemented but I'll leave that to the experts. 2003:C3:6F39:EB05:C082:EC92:2CDF:9EA8 (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
UN: Plurinational State of Bolivia - Wikipedia: Bolivia
UN: Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia: Iran
UN: Lao People's Democratic Republic - Wikipedia: Laos
UN: Viet Nam - Wikipedia: Vietnam
UN: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Wikipedia: United Kingdom
UN: United States of America - Wikipedia: United States
As you can see, UN decides nothing, not even for UK or USA. Chrz (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you just shot yourself in your own foot with that one.
All these countries you mentioned have their official UN name written in the first line of their Wiki article . Wikipedia authors just chose to use the short form of the official name in the title. So if a country is called "Islamic Republic of Iran", the Article is called "Iran" and it wouldn't make sence to call it "Persia" or anything else.
As we all know by now, Türkiye's official UN name is "Republic of Türkiye" and not "Republic of Turkey" since June 2022. Therefore the short form of this would be "Türkiye".
Thank you for proving my point. 2003:C3:6F39:EBDA:1D66:D332:252E:9300 (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Shot? I don't think so. UN names can be included in the first sentence (RfC doesn't look favourably though). This thread requests article name change and my example showed that we do not copy UN names. "Viet Nam" is the best proof. Chrz (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I've checked the UN website for Vietnam and yes the official name is not the same as the title but the word "Vietnam" is mentioned a few times within the UN site. Also, as far as I know, Vietnam or Viet Nam never requested that "Vietnam" should never be used. So this example is not really fitting. I've read the old discussions and I gotta say i can't find a single good reason on why it should not be changed. Can you name me one good reason other than "UN is not the Boss of Wikipedia" or something like that? Wikipedia relies on sources from all kinds of media and UN is included. UN is the single most important organization when it comes to recognition of countries and what not. 2003:C3:6F39:EBDA:6129:C0BF:7B0A:E9E6 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The community consensus is that there are many good reasons not to move the page, as discussed in the many move requests. --Spekkios (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
"Since Türkiye is an oficially recogniced memeber of the UN and the change was accepted by the UN, there should be no reason to not change it on Wikipedia." Last I checked, the UN had exactly zero control over either Wikipedia or the English language. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not about control. It's a reliable source that should be used to correct something that is not correct anymore. It's getting kinda ridicoulus now. I've named sources and good reasons for a change an all I hear from other people here is that UN is not the "boss" of Wikipedia. Doesn't Wikipedia use sources from all of media to back up it's articles? I just can't wrap my head around it for why some people here are so against the change. The english language was one of the reasons why this change was done and accepted in the first place. The old name created unnecessary confusion and Wikipedia, as a source of information for millions of people should help getting it right. 2003:C3:6F39:EBDA:6129:C0BF:7B0A:E9E6 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
"Not correct anymore"? How does Turkey have anything to do with what is correct IN ENGLISH? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The name of a country isn't a word that is just defined in the dictionary as something like an object (e.g. a car or a house) or something. A country name is a proper name more comparable to brand like e.g. Coca Cola. I am aware that most oft the time, a country is named different in other languages. But english is the most important and biggest lingua franca. And this change happend in the english. A country has the authority to change its name. I mentioned serveral examples where this worked out just fine. ExceptionError (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
UN is 1 source. One. One of many. IMHO big enough to include whatever it says in the first sentence but that's it. Not the definitive proof to show that Turkey is "not correct" for Wikipedia. Chrz (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
What sources are still needed then? It does not make sense, why can't you give me a good reason? Why was "FYROM" or "Macedonia" changed to "North Macedonia"? It was pretty similar back in 2019. Both Greece and North Macedonia agreed on the change. UN did accept it and it was changed. Easy as that.
The King of former "Swaziland" single handedly announced the change of the country to "Eswatini" because he thought people confuse it with "Switzerland". Not that unsimilar from Türkiye's change. UN accepted it and it was changed.
I named "Persia" and "Iran" and other examples a few times. Why do they get ignored?
You need more sources? I've already shown that the European Council uses Türkiye. How about BBC? arguably one of the biggest english news websites in the world. They use "Turkiye" rather than "Türkiye" which is fine because of the umlaut.
Here is even more:
BBC, European Council, Fifa, Nato, Forbes, WHO, Morningstar, msn, The Sun, Moody's, Fitchratings, MEMO, Morocco World news, Outlooktravaler
I don't know how many examples and sources need to be provided. I get the feeling that personal opnions get in the way of resolving this. ExceptionError (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You need to read the previous discussion. The main thing is you need to read our policy on article names in WP:COMMONNAME. We don't go by official names we use the names that English-speakers recognise. At the moment, Türkiye is only being used in English-language sources generated by Turkish and related media: Hürriyet Daily News, Daily Sabah, TRT etc. The mainstream media of English-speaking countries have continued to use "Turkey" e.g. BBC[10], Reuters[11], CNN[12], ABC[13] etc. It's just not catching on. That's why the article name won't be changed (yet). DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I have shown quite a few examples of websites from non turkish sources. My BBC source used Turkiye and yours used Turkey. I can't tell why there is this irregularity. But I am glad that I got this reasonable reply. ExceptionError (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why you think your BBC source uses Turkiye. It doesn't appear when I click on it. You can't cherry pick a few obscure sources (and those reporting the name change can't be included). It really isn't being used in the mainstream English-language world. When I google "Turkiye" on my English-language google a message comes up Did you mean: Turkey. The reality is the vast majority of English-speakers don't even know the word. There's no point asking for the name change unless that changes. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
If you go to the linked site and click on "show more" it is there in the image description: "...Antonio Guterres attend the signing ceremony of the agreement which unblocks Ukrainian grain exports, in Istanbul, Turkiye...".
I have a feeling that you really didn't give any attention to my sources. First of all I haven't cherry picked those. I did a basic research by typing "Türkiye" or "Turkiye" in those search bars for each website. Second, I made sure to not pick those who were just reporting the change. Third, my sources are not obscure at all. If we ignore BBC for now. there are still very well known organizations and websites mentioned by me (with the exeption of MEMO - "Middle eastern monitor" maybe).
Why are my arguments keept getting ignored? If you'd just told me the google thing, I would less likely fight your statement. That's the reason why these requests keep apperaing again and again. They don't get taken seroius.
I still don't think that your google argument proves anything, though. You just assume that "Turkey" is used by the vast majority, same way I assume that its the other way around. But i get asked to prove this which is impossible to prove.
But I do see it at least on social media on a daily basis. However I accept that it probably still needs a bit more time. I just wanted to point out that i am not happy about the way those requests and propositions are treated. ExceptionError (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
When searching news using Google there are 307 results for Turkey and 293 results for Türkiye, and that is including articles that are written in the Turkish language. It's quite clear that the dominant English word for this country is "Turkey".
Your arguments are not being ignored. Swaziland was moved to Eswatini because a consensus was reached during a move request. Same with North Macedonia You are free to start a sixth move request if you desire, but it will probably be WP:SNOW closed with a moratorium. --Spekkios (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
First step is lead sentence as "also known as" alternate name. Tough to achieve even that in the thread above! And you want to change article name -- much much more difficult. Chrz (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
FTR, the BBC link is using the word in an image credit. They will likely be required to use the text provided by the agency, which was probably provided by the copyright holder. Which is to say, this isn't the BBC using Türkiye. It's the BBC quoting the Turkish government using Türkiye. Kahastok talk 07:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
North Macedonia, Eswatini - majority of sources switched => Wikipedia switched.
Turkey - some sources used it once => Wikipedia yawned.
Unknown countries have better starting position to change its name. Chrz (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
There have been 4 RM's in the last 10 months. If you want to start a 5th, feel free. --21:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spekkios (talk • contribs)
You read the previous discussions. If you still don't understand all of the reasons presented in those discussions, then how is soliciting what is going to end up being the very same list of reasons repeated all over again going to help you? Largoplazo (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I am Turkish myself. In our country we have always been called TÜrkiye. I do not understand why others should not call it Türkiye too. Geographynerd123 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Because they aren't Turkish. The same reason why Germany isn't called Deutchland by non-Germans. --Spekkios (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
How often do you refer to the "United States" or "Hellas" (Greece) or "Shqipëria" (Albania) by those names instead of "Amerika Birleşik Devletleri", "Yunanistan", and "Arnavutluk" when you're conversing or writing in Turkish? Largoplazo (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Question Regarding the Türkiye Situation

Duplication. This is already under discussion in the ongoing RfC above. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

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


Hey everyone,

I’ve been reading the Talk posts about the Name Change and am a little surprised at how it typically goes. I personally feel like there are strong arguments made on both ends and am unsure of why a compromise isn’t made. On the one hand, Turkey still is the biggest recognized name in the English language and this is the English article. On the other hand, Türkiye (which has always been the name used in Turkey as well as in many other countries’ languages) is now the official UN English name.

What would be the issue in saying something like “Turkey (Officially Republic of Türkiye)”? Especially given that as it currently stands the opening line says that the official name is Republic of Turkey which objectively is just not true anymore. I get that a community consensus was met and all that but to me it seems like an unusually strong resistance when a valid compromise can be made that appeals to both the commonly used English name for the country as well as the official English name.

So in essence this wouldn’t be a name change for the article but rather placing a clarifying point. In any case it is interesting to me that the official UN name isn't even in the first paragraph. I am curious to know your thoughts about this and hope to spark an actual discussion rather than either side just hard pushing either “only Türkiye” or “only Turkey”. 2601:600:8D80:28C0:583:A14E:F56D:7F32 (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is excessively long. So unfortunately, it is easy to miss this ongoing discussion: Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_the_official_name_of_the_country_in_the_lede_(2). –Austronesier (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this! How would I be able to participate? Do I just edit where it says "Poll" 2601:600:8D80:28C0:2C63:F568:FC6B:4084 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Heva you really read this talk page? #RfC_on_the_official_name_of_the_country_in_the_lede Chrz (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I have read this talk page. That being said, when I originally read it as well as posted my original thread, I was on mobile. Believe it or not (though I hope you would believe it lol), that poll was not visible to me. I am on my computer now and was surprised to see it so blatantly present at the top of the page. I am not sure why I was not able to see it before. Thank you for linking it to me, though again I want to make it clear I was not being dishonest in saying I read it. I just was not able to see the relevant section somehow. 2601:600:8D80:28C0:2C63:F568:FC6B:4084 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The RFC on the official name of the country was closed on 23 May 2022 in favor of having it keep saying "Turkey", based on the UN not having done an official name change at that time. The current UN page says:

The Republic of Türkiye changed its official name from The Republic of Turkey on 26 May 2022 in a request submitted to the Secretary-General by the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs.
which is to say, the official situation changed a few days after the RFC closed. So the page should be updated. On 3 June, there was another RFC about changing the name of the article, closing as not to change, based on common English usage. English usage may or not have changed since then: I'm seeing Turkiye in more sources nowadays.

So I think the "official name" part of the article is currently in error and has been since 26 May. It should be fixed. Whether the page should be moved is a separate question and it's worth looking at recent sources to see whether it's time to run another pagemove discussion. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 03:50, 23 October 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.

Europe or Asia?

I think it is in the Balkan region of Europe because I am Turkish myself and the language, food and people are all European. We are also in NATO (North Atlantic treaty organisation) which most of Europe is in. We are not Asian. We are nowhere near Asia. Geographynerd123 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You think Anatolia's in Europe??? DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
See Asia and this picture. --Spekkios (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Damn, turns out the US has been a European country since 1949 as well then? --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F498:87A:40CA:7F2A (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I hate this conversation; simply because of how loaded it is. Europe is supposed to be a geographical entity, but it's nowhere near that. It's cultural, economic and religious; and when we talk about it as if there is one correct answer, we tend to obscure the fragile foundations in which the Europe/Asia divide is formed.
The idea that Turkey's "language, food and people are all European" is cherry-picking at best and nonsense at worst. Language is the most obvious one, the Turkish language is Turkic, a language family which, by and large, does not appear in Europe. About the food and people, I suppose you're talking about the largely shared culture of the Post-Ottoman world. However true that may be - and indeed, I would agree that Post-Ottoman lands have more in common with each other than the traditional grouping of Europe/Asia - that only proves the fragility of these groupings, not that Turkey is not in Asia.
There is also a general consensus - biased as it may be - in mainstream academia that Southeastern Europe ends at the Bosporus and Western Asia begins right after, which Wikipedia has to follow. Uness232 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Huh? Biased mainstream academia? Has anyone anywhere ever said Anatolia's geographically in Europe? DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you got my point. My point is that unlike most (the other one that doesn't fit is Asia/Africa) other continent divides, there is no large body of water dividing Europe and Asia. This means that the Europe/Asia divide is primarily socially constructed, and reifies ideas of cultural/religious difference (usually in the interest of Western Europeans). More simply, the bias isn't in mainstream academia; it is in the centuries-old consensus that has been loaded with cultural and religious significance. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has to use that consensus, which states that Anatolia, as you said, is in Asia. Uness232 (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
No, sorry I don't get your point at all. There is a body of water that divides South east Europe and west Asia and that is why there is absolutely no debate whatsover about the geographical divide there. There may be a debate about the cultural divide and, further north, the exact geographical divide accross the Eurasian land mass where, yes, there is no body of water. But in geographical terms specifically, there is no debate about the Bosphorus. Can you cite any examples? And just to be clear, this is about geography, not cultural or political boundaries. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
To @DeCausa, but also somewhat to @Largoplazo:
The Bosporus is a body of water, but the type of separation it provides is no more prominent - and indeed, less prominent - than the Danish Straits. No one, however, is trying to separate Norway/Finland/Sweden into a separate continent from the rest of Europe. It is sometimes the case that continents are defined by large landmasses navigable only by sea or air; this is the case in America/Europe and America/Asia, as well as all continents with Oceania and Antarctica. However, you can definitely go from the Asian to the European side of Istanbul without touching the sea, as Jules Verne had pointed out 2 centuries earlier. This means that "continent", as far as Europe/Asia is concerned, is not defined by consistent criteria. Therefore, it has to be defined by convention, and as the modern borders of the 6/7 continent model has been drawn by Western and Central Europeans, it reflects their perspective (the Ottomans thought about landmasses in a different way, for example). As Encyclopedia Britannica also states; "The land boundary between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct that has been defined variously; only as a matter of agreement is it tied to a specific borderline." Also see: Continent and Boundaries between the continents.
I am, however, not at all suggesting that we abandon this criteria; for reasons I have detailed above, most important being that the Bosporus is the most commonly used borderline in academia, as much as people may want to disagree with it for valid or invalid reasons. However, dismissing these concerns with supposed truisms, like "You think Anatolia is not in Asia?" for example, will not help. Uness232 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is just a non-issue. The OP may think Anatolia is in Europe. You may have your WP:OR doubts. But that's not remotely reflected in any WP:RS. The naming of continents, oceans, mountain ranges, deserts etc are ultimately "social constructs". That's the essence of geographical terms. That's nothing new. But of all geographical terms, the Europe-Asia boundary at the Bosphorus is probably one of the most universally accepted and unchalenged on the planet! It's just a bizarre one to question. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, I had - with criticism of your method of doing so - agreed with you. I have been consistently saying that we should not change the definition precisely because of the consensus of sources. It is right there in my first response. My contention is with the method you have engaged with them; I find that this type of dismissive rhetoric (that you continue to engage in) does nothing but drive people away from Wikipedia. And no, I did not and do not have doubts over the right thing to do.
It is also interesting for you to accuse me of WP:OR for suggesting that there might be some use to understanding and challenging the fragile nature of these classifications while also adding quite clearly that Wikipedia is not the place to do so; while you engage in quite a bit of rhetorical flourish yourself: "the Europe-Asia boundary at the Bosphorus is probably one of the most universally accepted and unchalenged on the planet!" is, definitely at least as OR as my own statements. Uness232 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The bottom line is that you are disagreeing not just with what is written in one Wikipedia article but with a definition that prevails throughout much of the world. This is not the place to take up such an argument. Wikipedia goes by what prevails, it doesn't reason its way into positions that are at odd with what prevails in the greater world. Largoplazo (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Alright, maybe there is some problem with how I'm articulating myself; but please read what I wrote again and again, because I am sure I keep making the same argument. I am well aware that Wikipedia relies on usage in academic/reliable sources, however the fact that Wikipedia doesn't reason with what prevails in the vast majority of sources does not give us Wikipedians the right to not explain (at least without greater sympathy than asking condescending questions) why their somewhat valid questioning does not really have a place in Wikipedia. I think I'm being quite clear in my reasoning here, and my conclusion is, in my opinion, also quite simple. I have argued that there is some validity to the argument that the traditional European/Asian division is problematic (this is discussed in both Continent and Boundaries between the continents), but that as Wikipedia goes by common usage, changes to this can not be incorporated without significant changes in academia/colloquial usage. How is this disagreeing with either of you? Uness232 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The fundamental prblem with what you say is that in fact no one is raising it as an issue or raising it in any way as problematic. Despite being asked, you haven't linked to any sourcethat does so. In other words, you have an idiosyncratic point of view. However, I think the problem is you andvthe OP have conflared "Europe" and Western world as though they are synonyms. They aren't of course. Whether Turkey is in "the West" is a point of discussion and much of what you have said applies to that debate and the points that the OP raised are also entirely relevant to it as welll. DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I frankly do not have the energy to respond to this anymore. I do not agree with your framing, but as we do not disagree on the action that needs to be taken I suggest we end this conversation. Uness232 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
If the language makes a country European. Can you then remove the Basque country, Hungary, Estonia and Finland from the European map too? they dont speak an Indo Euroepan language either. Metuboy (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Also remember that Turkey is not called Asia cos it is related to the continent but other way around. the entire continent took the name of 'Asia' which was a small Roman provinece in Western Turkey.
Also places like Troy, Ephesus and Sardis all considered in Asia (which is non-sense) and they should be presented in 'History of Asia' then not in 'History of Europe'. We should rewrite all Wikipedia. cos Tales is an Asian philosopher. Clearly the definition of Europe is flawed by only defining it with Trace. All the Western coasts of Turkey historically more Euroepan than 80% of Europe. At least the most Greek part of Europe in its history and art. Metuboy (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The distinction between Asia and Europe was made long before the creation of NATO (which also includes the United States, which is not European). And you think that Anatolia is on the Balkan peninsula? Then there's the matter of the Turkic peoples themselves, who originated in Asia and remain spread throughout a large expanse of it. When did they become culturally European?
There's no use coming up with arbitrary reasons to reject the generally accepted division between Europe and Asia in that area that's defined by Anatolia's being physically part of Asia and its separation from European Turkey by the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles. Largoplazo (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is really pointless. What's the purpose? Is this a forum? Beshogur (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is with this definition. Troy is becoming a Asian city with many other Greek cities and most of the Greek philosophers born in Asia but not Europe. I am not telling South East region of Turkey is Euroepan but claiming that Agean cost of Turkey is not European is pretty bizzare.
The region in the ancient times or Roman times called 'Asia' but it was only a small Roman province to call that part Asia. Later the entire continent is called 'Asia' took its name from this small province. But it doesnt mean that the entire continent is in a way connected to that small province. It was just a random name.
Tbh I think non western people rewrite the history indeed and call Europe what it is 'The Greater Middle East'. In the end, Greek columns are originally coming from Egypt. Latin alphabet well you mean 'Phoenician'. Christianity and Vatican.. Well another Middle Eastern philosophers ideas spreading to Europe. Even the architecture. The finest one 'Venetian Gothic Style' everyone agrees it has Islamic influences all around it. and the starter of the Western ideology Tales from Miletos. Well born and raised in Middle East. Yeah maybe Europe is just an extension of Middle East. We shouldnt give it such a Eurocentric status at all. Metuboy (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Why not 'The Old Continent' is not Middle East or the New World is not 'Europe'? Metuboy (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Not to disrespect someone, but the OP has like 10 edits, whom almost all of them are forum like posts. Beshogur (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not really sure what the issue is but I remember we have had a similar discussion before with pushpin maps in Turkish articles. At the time we found a compromise to include both Europe and Asia instead of just one. It is between 4 to 6 informative characters and a line more in the infobox. Turkey is often presented as a bridge between cultures and continents. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • this thread and some of the opinions in it is just bizarre. Firstly, can someone say what is proposed to be changed in the article as a result of this thread? secondly, can someone point to a reliable source that contradicts the statement that European Turkey is in Europe and Anatolia is in Asia? There's no serious opinion out there that says otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

What about the spelling of other things? Such as “İstanbul” 伟思礼 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. What would you like to know or change about the spelling of Istanbul and/or "other things"? General Ization Talk 04:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

National Amblem/Coat of Arms of Turkey

Please check following link and last sentence of translation. Coat of Arms: The shape consisting of the sun with 8 long and 8 short rays in the middle and 16 stars around it is called the “Presidential Coat of Arms”. The sun symbolizes the Republic of Turkey with its infinity and this feature, and the 16 stars symbolize the 16 great independent Turkish States in history. The coat of arms is the emblem of the Presidency and the Republic of Turkey.

[14]https://cbddo.gov.tr/kurumsal-kimlik/ Mrtgedikli (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly the English version doesn't mention this, while the construction sheet mentions this several times. [15] and doesn't appear in 2020 version. Not sure when they did change this. Beshogur (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Cold war

You Guys forgot the fact that Turkey/ Türkiye is part of the Cold War As from the Cuban Missile Crisis As the Turk were setting up a missile to Counter Attack The Soviets 98.39.142.89 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a complicated story to cover briefly so it should not be included here. Kavas (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Turkey state

"Under an authoritarian dictatorship" was added to the State section and not enough articles were included under it. fellow newspaper articles have been included. Global technologyy (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

if that's not already on the article, can we mention how they changed their name to turkiye to avoid confusion with the animal. this edit is not meant to be disruptive or unconstructive. Yylecaksberri (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

See section above for ongoing talk Talk:Turkey#RfC on the official name of the country in the lede (2)... feel free to voice your view,Moxy- 17:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
That isn't at all the reason for the name change. Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey/Archive_35&oldid=1255167181"