Talk:Turkey

Former featured articleTurkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
August 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 27, 2017Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 20, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 8, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 29, 2005, October 29, 2011, October 29, 2012, October 29, 2013, October 29, 2014, October 29, 2015, October 29, 2016, and October 29, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article

Too much history in the lead?

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

Yet half the lead is about history.

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

I looked at some of the FA class country articles. Both Germany and India have two paragraphs on history. In this article, some of the sentences might be trimmed, but there are also missing information. I think 2 paragraphs for history is appropriate though. And the last paragraph needs to be expanded to cover the rest of the article. So 4 paragraphs in total, and we would meet the recommended paragraph number in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length.
Youprayteas, I reverted your changes for now. If you search talk page archives, there seems to be an RFC that was done regarding some of the changes you made [1]. Even though it is an old one (almost 7 years!), you might need a new RFC. If you decide to proceed with a RFC though, please wait a week or two, as there are lots of missing stuff in the lead, and I'll be working on them. Also I'm surprised you took out Göbeklitepe, it's a very important site and mentioned in Human history for example, a Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/1 article. Bogazicili (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot we cut the prehistory and early history by linking to History of Anatolia perhaps via a hatnote? Otherwise that just leaves 2 paras for everything other than history and prehistory. The first paragraph is mostly geography with a brief mention of demographics and economics - are you happy with that paragraph?
I guess we all agree the fourth paragraph needs improving - so perhaps we should start a new discussion titled “4th paragraph”. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example “After the prehistory and history of Anatolia, and history and fall of the Ottoman Empire ………………. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting we replace most of 2nd and 3rd paragraph with that sentence? If that's an outline, and not the actual suggestion, that's already the format in this article. 2 paragraphs for everything else should be enough. Excessive detail is given to EU-relations part for example:
"After becoming one of the early members of the Council of Europe in 1950, Turkey became an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995, and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005."
Again, the lead of India, which is FA, is much longer. Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you or someone else has already improved a bit about the EU. I have started a new discussion below about the 4th para so we can concentrate on history here. My sentence above is not an exact suggestion but to give an idea. I still don’t see why history is so important that it deserves half the lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I calculated right even if we just cut down history from 50% of the lead to 40% that would still allow a dozen words for each of the following which are not mentioned at all but should be in my opinion:
current (21st century) national politics and government
environment (climate and biodiversity both have subsections in the body)
culture (well OK it does have one letter “C” in the lead) Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's half the lead, because other sections were not covered. So this discussion is premature, before the lead is expanded. Bogazicili (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened to notice that the Library of Congress country study at https://www.loc.gov/resource/frdcstdy.turkeycountrystu00metz_0/?sp=29&st=image&r=-0.836,-0.674,2.673,1.72,0 starts with the formation of the Republic so I don’t see why Wikipedia is different and has to go back further Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: I had missed this. Maybe you are looking at a later page? If you look at contents [2], they included Ancient Anatolia including Hittites etc, Romans and Byzantines, and intro into Turkic people such as Great Seljuks. I hadn't seen this source but that is exactly the format we are using. It's also same in the sources I'm using (Howard, Douglas A. (2016). The History of Turkey (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood. ISBN 978-1-4408-3466-0) Bogazicili (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

CLOSED
See reply and previous discussions

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

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

  • President -> President of the Republic
  • Vice President -> Vice President of the Republic
  • Assembly Speaker -> President of the Assembly
  • Chief Justice -> President of the Constitutional Court 31.223.50.18 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article is too long

It's currently 13,585 words or 87kb.[3] Will aim for under 9k words per Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3. That means multiple sections will need to be trimmed. Although some areas need expansion. For example, coverage of earthquakes, faultlines etc are ridiculously short. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ethnicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your revert was inappropriate because all the footnotes and reliably sourced information within was deleted without a proper reason. You didn't just remove the parts you objected to, like the percentages.
As for the content issue, the footnotes make it clear. For example, there are people who identify as both a Turk and Kurd in Turkey. For example, Hülya Avşar: "hem Kürdüm hem Türküm" [5]. You do not get to say she is not a Turk, but just a Kurd. You also do not get to say she is not a Kurd, but just a Turk.
This is the footnote: "Turkish constitution defines all citizens as “Turks”.[6] In surveys, when asked about their ethnic background, people may self-report different answers.[7] Some people have multiple ethnic identities.[8][9]" Everything in the footnote is WP:RS
It makes the legal definition clear. It makes it clear people may self-identify in different ways. It also makes it clear some people like Hülya Avşar have multiple ethnic identities. And the infobox gives percentages based on both definitions.
Pages like Germans, French people just give the citizenship numbers. Germany doesn't have ethnicity info in the infobox. But Turkey does. So just giving the one, single-choice (adds up to 100%) definition, while ignoring the citizenship definition (or ignoring people who identify as both Turk and Kurd etc) is biased (against WP:NPOV). Turkish people should also give the numbers for both. Maybe the only thing I can add is to give examples in the footnote: "people may self-report different answers, such as Kurd or Arab"
I forgot to add. Giving the legal definition does not mean suggesting "Turkish origin for the Kurds". That is ridiculous. Bogazicili (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili People might indeed have multiple ethnic identities. However, unlike Hülya Avşar's case, some people may also identify as both Kurd and Zaza, or might identify with two other non-Turkish ethnicities. The citizenship definition does not get rid of this problem; to say it does would be assuming that everyone who identifies with multiple ethnic groups are by definition identifying with "Turk" along with a non-Turkish identity, which is not the case. If there is a problem here, it is with the people making these surveys; that is not our problem to fix.
Moving past that, my initial problem with this edit is simple: the legal/citizenship-based definition of "Turk" is not considered an ethnic one by WP:RS. The citizenship definition therefore should be excluded from the "ethnic groups" section of the infobox. Placing it somewhere else might be perfectly acceptable, but not there. If you are bothered by people with multiple identities not being represented, I believe some surveys include multiple answers for self-identification; I would be perfectly fine with the inclusion of such a source.
Also, I did not mean to say that you specifically were suggesting a Turkish origin for the Kurds. I am simply saying that that is the only way the citizenship definition of Turk can be viewed as an ethnic grouping. Uness232 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see WP:NPOV. There is no single definition of "ethnicity". There is no single definition of "Turk". If there is going to be an infobox, it should include multiple definitions. The alternative is omitting percentages in the infobox (like Germany). However, the footnote should stay after this line "most are ethnic Turks, while ethnic Kurds are the largest ethnic minority.[b][4]" in the lead. The footnote after population number "85,372,377[a][5]" should stay.
Also, the infobox was clear
"By citizenship:[a][5]
98% Turks
2% Others" Bogazicili (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili I have read WP:NPOV before, thank you. There may be no single definition of ethnicity, but in its Turkish context, citizenship is never equated with ethnic categorization in mainstream scholarship; if you can find me examples of this being done (specifically the 98% number being used as an ethnic qualifier; i.e. something like "Turkey's population is 98% Turkish") in reputable academic journals, I will concede this point.
The information given in the infobox might have been clear, but because of the previous point, it should not be in the ethnic groups section.
All that being said, I see which footnotes you were talking about now; I have no objections to those two, and sorry for reverting them along with what I objected to. Uness232 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232:, citizenship is not equated with ethnic categorization. I put it in the ethnicity field, because I couldn't find a way to add a custom field into the infobox template. I'd have renamed it as "ethnicity/citizenship". That's why the clarification was to the right ("By ethnic background", "By citizenship"). Bogazicili (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 98% of residents of Turkey have Turkish citizenships is not sufficiently notable to include in the Infobox, and is a factoid that is rarely included in country infoboxes. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, sorry for random ping but we are discussing the issue you raised here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3, care to comment? Bogazicili (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely wrong for Bogazicili to make this edit without consensus, it constantly violates WP:WAR policy. 176.55.188.95 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is now a mess and filling all these parameters makes it not necessarily better. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at that PR and the article state at the time, my comment referred to specific phrasing in the lead which has been improved since then. This dispute seems to be about the infobox, which is a bit more tricky as there isn't really room to craft words that provide nuance. There probably isn't a perfect solution that fits all perspectives, especially considering this is a prominent page in an international encyclopaedia that will be read by many people with no background knowledge of Turkish demographics. CMD (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stepping back from the detail, or at least the politics, and think about what readers might need or want. As a general statement, I don't think including the proportion of non-citizen residents of Turkey is a useful or interesting piece of information - at least for the Infobox. Except for countries like Saudi, it's not really a key aspect. One would expect to see the vast majority to be citizens. I'm not saying it couldn't be covered in the article text, but for the Infobox it needs to hit significant info only. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding citizenship is useless, since wiki template uses ethnic groups, not citizenship. All those discussion about citizenship is purposeless. No reason for adding citizenship. And I do not even think tüik report of 98% Turkish citizens is a true number with all those refugees, etc. Beshogur (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree. Lionel Cristiano? 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: Syrians under temporary protection is not included in TUIK population stats, it's in the footnote. Bogazicili (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would say yes - the ethnic make up of the country is a significant issue that global readership would expect to have info on given the longstanding coverage and controversy around the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency. That's the usual case where there is ethnic conflict - see for example Cyprus, Nigeria etc DeCausa (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: This doesn't explain why you removed reliably sourced footnotes. User readability is a nonsensical excuse.
Also, looking to the Cyprus page, their demonym is "Cypriot", so saying Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots etc works.
Same for Nigeria. It doesn't say 70% Nigerian, 30% Hausa. Bogazicili (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your post doesn't make much sense. We have an article called Turkish Cypriots and an article called Kurds in Turkey. The Infoboxes would just reflect that standard nomenclature. Nigeria is different. There is no Nigerian identity separate from the component ethnicities. That's a different scenario. The point is ethinicity not citizenship is dealt with in both Infoboxes because it reflects a real world controversy. They're tailored to reflect the actualities of those contries. that's standard for country Infoboxes - Turkey should have the same treatment. You seem to be tie ing yourself in knots over something that is actually quite simple. (Removing the footnotes isn't directly related to this thread. We've discussed your POV pushing on my talk page which is a different issue.) DeCausa (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed pretty hostile in your talk page and didn't provide adequate explanation. And, no, I'm not "POV pushing". You seem to not understand there is a difference between "Turk" and "ethnic Turk". Bogazicili (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a Turkish citizen and an ethnic Turk. Is that what you are trying to say? Of course I understand that. The point is that the stats of the former are of no interest for the purposes of the Infobox whereas the stats of the latter would be of interest to a global readership. This latter point is what you seem not to get. DeCausa (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Do you still maintain the nonsensical excuse that footnotes that are currently in the article impair user readability? Should I expect further reverts from you from the current version of the article?
2) Do you understand the word "Turk" is a Homonym? Indeed it does ALSO mean "Turkish citizen". Bogazicili (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?? How has that got any bearing on what we are talking about? DeCausa (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: See below. Bogazicili (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili When we are talking about ethnicity, the word 'Turk' never means 'Turkish citizen'; which is what the infobox section is about. Uness232 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232: This an assumption. This is an encyclopedia, some people will know nothing about Turkey. And again, many countries tie ethnicity to citizenship. Bogazicili (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with DeCausa here. Uness232 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uness232 so you want to keep using single choice CIA stats as if there are no one who's both ethnic Kurd and ethnic Turk. Bogazicili (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; I'm sure there are surveys with multiple ethnicities as a possible answer. I remember seeing one back in 2022. However, if that solution is not possible, I would want the ethnicities to stay. I am also not particularly opposed to one concise footnote explaining how the ethnic definition is not the same as the legal term and demonym. Uness232 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also prefer qualifiers such as ethnic Turks, ethnic Kurds, other ethnic backgrounds, not just Turks, Kurds etc. Bogazicili (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah. If somehow "ethnic Kurd" is better for you than "Kurd" then let's go with that. (It's a misconception that it makes a difference in the English language but if it resolves this for you, then no problem.) DeCausa (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Great. And, of course it does make a difference. Many countries tie ethnicity to citizenship. Germans, French people etc just give citizenship numbers, and ethnicity was omitted in their country articles. So saying 70% German, 30% X can mean 70% German citizen and 30% foreign citizens. Saying 70% "ethnic German" is completely different.
2) And I'm asking again: "Do you still maintain the nonsensical excuse that footnotes that are currently in the article impair user readability? Should I expect further reverts from you from the current version of the article?" I'm trying to improve the article and I don't want to deal with nonsensical time-consuming full reverts. Bogazicili (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) It doesn't make a difference because the parameter in the Infobox is "Ethnic group". You've completely misunderstood the situation. Neither France nor Germany have the Ethnic group parameter completed in their infoboxes - which doesn't surprise me as the ethnic grouping doesn't have the same significance in those countries as in Turkey. Anyway, it doesn't matter now if you're happy with that wording. (just so you know, someone will rightly say that referencing "ethnic Turk" under a heading of "ethnic groups" is a redundancy.)
2) I couldn't give a shit. It's unnecessary clutter and better out than in but it wasn't the target of my revert which was the even worse clutter of the citizenship info that you put in. Just collateral damage but i wasn't sorry to see it go. If you want to keep that sort of pointlessness in i'm certainly not going to waste time removing it. DeCausa (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not redundant for previously explained reasons.
2) Great, we established you don't "give a shit" and make full reverts, and you don't care about "collateral damage". Hopefully this won't repeat in the future. The article is currently in a bad shape and requires lots of work. I just don't want to waste too much time to nonsensical time-consuming full reverts. Bogazicili (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not letting that go. It is utterly redundant. Uness232 has just made the exact same point to you. You don't seem to understand that under the heading "ethic groups" the only criteria for inclusion is ethnicity not citizenship. It's irrelevant how the country in question defines citizenship. This has become so tedious I'm ok with you adding the word "ethnic" in but i would say it's an almost a near certainty that someone will take it out because it's redundant. And as far as your second point is concerned, yes i will make a "full" revert when you make a poor quality edit even when some of your edit is marginally less poor quality than other aspects. None of your nedit was worthwhile or improved the article. DeCausa (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, again, some countries do tie ethnicity to citizenship, whereas other countries officially collect ethnicity/race stats. This issue was also commented in Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3 Bogazicili (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That's not the point. I give up. Seriously. DeCausa (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point that approx 4 million Syrians under temp protection is not included in the official population number of ~85 million is also important and was in the footnote. But I'm sure you don't "give a shit" either. Bogazicili (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili Countries do not tie ethnicity to citizenship. Many countries are named after a single, usually majority ethnic group, causing their demonyms to be used in two different senses: one ethnic, and the other legal. Turkey is one of these countries. Some nationalist political movements in Turkey might try to impose a top-down 'fusion' of those two senses aiming for the assimilation of other ethnic groups, but those two senses remain separate in WP:RS, with only one being referred to as ethnicity.
And by the way, calling people "ethnic X" in an infobox section called "ethnic groups" is a redundancy at best. Uness232 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It can also be written in other sections other than the information box. Lionel Cristiano? 00:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. The country infobox is very rigid by consensus, and well-defined parameters should not be hijacked for information that is misplaced under that header (unless there a good reason and local consensus for it). I deliberately say "hijacked" because citizenship is not ethnicity. This is also the case when a term is used at different levels with different meanings. Turkey is no different from many other countries in this respect. There was a time when the national/citizenship definition was considered exclusive, and merely assertively self-identifying as anything else but Turkish was considered high treason at some point in the dark history of late 20th-century Turkey (at least for certain ethnic groups). But that doesn't mean that the Turkish constitution defines "Ethnicity" at any point–it deliberately doesn't do so to emphasize national unity over ethnic diversity.
The label "Ethnic groups" makes it inappropriate per se to include citizenship data within it. And our standard country infobox doesn't give room for the latter data. Even in extreme cases like the UAE with a very high proportion of non-citizen residents, we don't have citizenship stats in the infobox.
As for the same data (notes + sources) in the lede, I have no objection to their inclusion, although I don't consider them super-relevant here unless you also mention the negative impact that enforcement of this definition on Turkish citizens from a non-Turkish ethnic background has had in course of modern Turkish history. NB that's me; Uness232 and DeCausa might see things differently, so I'd advise not to restore anything. I have restored the stable version, since you have completely ignored the objections by two other editors in an ongoing discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: are you even aware what you reverted? Look at the previous version again. Bogazicili (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so: The misplaced sentence Turkish constitution defines all citizens as “Turks” in the note in the infobox "Ethic groups", and the trivial statement that Turkish citizens self-identify ethnically the way they like. –Austronesier (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: As mentioned, no one including Uness232 and DeCausa objected to the footnotes. You also deleted the following footnote:
"Total Population: 85,372,377
Foreign Population: 1,570,543 (excludes "Syrians under temporary protection" and "foreigners holding visas or residence permits shorter than 90 days")
Turkish citizens: 83,801,834"
I guess the fact that almost 4 million Syrians under temporary protection is not included in official population number of ~85 million is also "trivial".
So let me ask again, are you even aware what you reverted? Bogazicili (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you are aware that the figure of 1,570,543 is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? For the implications of this, I count on your awareness of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. –Austronesier (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly improving the article from top to bottom. I would have gotten to it when I come to the demography section. But again, no one is objecting to footnotes. You deleted reliably sourced information for no reason. Bogazicili (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None, except for the very substantial ones above. –Austronesier (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what exactly? Do you object to the footnotes? You yourself said you have no objection. Bogazicili (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili This excerpt in no way supports your claim. In fact it draws the same distinction between the ethnic and civic-national definitions of "Turk" that I did. Nowhere in this source is the "Turkish" part of the "Turkish Kurd" is an ethnicity; in fact it points out how it is otherwise: Therefore someone like Hikmet Çetin would consider himself an ethnic Kurd of Turkish nationality (citizenship). See how the distinction is being made? There is a way in which people identify their roots and/or cultural affiliations (which is called ethnicity in this text, and can also include multiplicity), and their citizenship (which is called nationality).
I understand that you are trying to capture a complexity here; some people identify with two ethnic identities as well. However, Hikmet Çetin is not one of these people; he is ethnically just a Kurd, and by nationality a Turk. That is not the same as multiple parts of a family identifying themselves ethnically as Turks or Kurds. Uness232 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed the point. The ethnic and civic-national definitions of "Turk". Now if you just say 70-75% Turk, 20% Kurd in the infobox, without any footnotes or qualifiers such as "ethnic Turk", how accurate and complete were you? Bogazicili (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very, considering the section is called "ethnic groups", not "demographics"; though one concise footnote can be added to the section about the two definitions of Turk if deemed strictly necessary. You do not seem to understand that ethnic group refers specifically to people's sense of ethnic belonging; a "Kurd of Turkish nationality/Turkish Kurd" is, in the context of an "ethnic groups" section, a Kurd. And indeed some people might define themselves as both a Turk and a Kurd, and mean both in an ethnic sense, but you can not measure that with citizenship data. Uness232 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can also add a nationality field like Spain. Right now the infobox is just giving the ethnic definition of "Turk", and ignoring the "civic-national" definition as you called it. I recently realised nationality was also an option in country infobox. They also completely ignored ethnicity in Spain article, even though there is Catalan independence movement. Bogazicili (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!!!! This is an ethnicity parameter not a nationality parameter, which is what I, Uness232, and Austronesier have been trying to get you to understand for hours. The only relevance the info you want to put in is the little used nationality parameter. (France is a rare example). But there is no pint adding yet more clutter to the box so I'm against that. It's an incredibly uninteresting parameter and little used for good reason. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already said if I could create a custom parameter, I would have renamed it ethnicity/citizenship. What you fail to understand "for hours" is just what I said. Giving the ethnic definition of "Turk" while ignoring the "civic-national" definition of "Turk" in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about ignoring it. It's about not needing it there. –Austronesier (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has become boring and too time consuming. Just trying to assess if we need Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Uness232, DeCausa, Austronesier, do you object to 1) footnotes removed by Austronesier [6] being added back? 2) object to saying "ethnic Turk", "ethnic Kurd" "other ethnic backgrounds" in the infobox, where it currently says Turk, Kurd, others? Bogazicili (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on 1, I oppose 2 (i.e. I would want the terms Turk, Kurd etc. to stay as is). Uness232 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want something "boring and too time consuming", then Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is it. Add perfunctory, and you'll have the full definition :)
@DeCausa at some exasperated moment above already has granted you "ethnic Turk", "ethnic Kurd" etc. OTOH, I think it looks silly under "Ethnic groups".
Another point is however the applicability of "ethnicity" to the entire population of Turkey. Many Turks that are not of non-Turkish ethnic background do not self-identify in ethnic terms. They mostly self-identify as Turkish by nationality alone; ethnicity is for the "other", so to speak. This is not Turkey-specific, but also applies to many other countries like Germany, Morocco (see discussion there about the proper ethnic labelling of the non-Berber majority population) or Japan. Most reliable sources use the "ethnicity" label for miniorites, but rarely for the "Turkish Turkish" majority. It is not a coincidence that in many articles, we find CIA factbook as the only source for the ethnic composition of countries. Better sources address this complex matter in a different way. Instances of the term "ethnic Turks" in reliable sources mostly appear in the context of Turkish minorities outside of Turkey. –Austronesier (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Can you answer to 1 and 2 similar to Uness232? You made a revert, but you refuse to answer simple questions. "Ethnic Turk" is used in the sources I have btw. Bogazicili (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My answers don't meet your expectations or don't come in the shape you want to have them; you should accept that. Calling this "refus[ing] to answer simple questions" is very much your perspecitve.
Repetition is boring and time consuming, but here we go: 1. oppose the note in "Ethnic groups" in the infobox (for reasons stated above), but weak oppose the note in "Population"; 2. oppose for reasons stated above. –Austronesier (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks. Conciseness is appreciated in talk pages Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Bogazicili (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created a request in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:1AM situation. Where I'm on this: (1) I'm now opposed to your footnote. Apart from anything else it's too reliant on WP:PRIMARY. I have a counter-proposal as a footnote, which is as follows: Turkish law does not recognise minority ethnicities. All Turkish citizens are deemed to have the legal status of "Turk", which is not considered to indicate membership of an ethnic grouping This would be cited to Bayir, Derya (2016). Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 9781317095804. (2) I'm opposed to add the word "ethnic" being add to each of the groupings. It's unnecessary and redundant as the heading of the parameter is "Ethnic groups". DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: anticipating a "friendly" reminder by @Bogazicili: what's your take on the note in "Population"? Oh, and I have rejected to continue at DRN, 1) because it's 1AM situation, and 2) because I don't see that the current handling of DRNs is done in an acceptable way. I haven't seen a place in WP where editors are treated more condescendingly. –Austronesier (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: Here's a secondary source:
Heper, M. (2007). The State and Kurds in Turkey. p. 91

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

Bogazicili (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-sequitur. I've already given you the secondary source I'm proposing to be used and the text that should go with it. Can you address that first please. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your text is incorrect. There are official minorities recognized. Bogazicili (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case (in the context of ethnic groups), then there would be no need for a footnote at all. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote and qualifiers is there because you were against adding nationality field like in Spain or France.
Recognized minorities are already in the article and seems well sourced: "According to the Constitutional Court, there are only four officially recognized minorities in Turkey: the three "non-Muslim" minorities recognized in the Treaty of Lausanne (Armenians, Greeks, and Jews) and the Bulgarians," Bogazicili (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that the "footnote and qualifiers is there because you were against adding nationality field" is patently untrue. You were pushing both well before you raised or even became aware of the nationality parameter. The Lausanne minorities are a complicated issue - the recognition is arguably about religion etc. But see my broader response below. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support DeCausa's note. It covers the citizenship aspect, but its focus is explicitly on ethnicity and the way it is official handled in Turkey. –Austronesier (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my footnote proposal. On reflection, the Turkish state's attitude to the recognition of ethnic minorities is far too complicated to cover in a footnote. See for example Prof Arndt Künnecke's paper here on the complexities of the issue. That was 2013, and it's got even more idiosyncratic since then with some of the developments on the attitude to the Kurds. It needs an article to cover it not a footnote - and our Minorities in Turkey does a poor job of it as far as I can see. The Infobox needs to stick to simple positions. The RS given a consistent view of the ethnic groups of Turkey which is what we have in the Infobox. The twists and turns of the Turkish legal and governmental position is too idiosyncratic and too much of an outlier to attempt to address in the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, complexity is a good reason for treating things not as infobox matter. Lack of robustness of data is another one. How consistient really are RS about figures for ethnic minorites? The only consistency I can find is that all good sources agree that most ethnic figures are based on "intuitive guesses" (per Kirisci & Winrow (2013), The Kurdish Question and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict). However, the entry for Kurds (19%) based on CIA factbook feigns a precision that is in sharp constrast to what reliable scholarly sources say. I don't want to remove the ethnic composition from the infobox, but this is actually a clear case of {{bcn}}. –Austronesier (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a reasonable number but I doubt they have that precision. Even some publicly available data is incorrect in the The World Factbook by the way, such as fertility rate. Bogazicili (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2024

CLOSED
See reply and previous discussions

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

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

 Done Lionel Cristiano? 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation format for books and long reports

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

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

University

Galatasaray University

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

Also, this university is a public university. Lionel Cristiano? 09:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you provide me a universal ranking that shows this university in the top 5 for Turkey. It is not even in the top 10 in any ranking. Istanbul University got 2 Nobel Prize winner alumni. You removed that one and added this instead? You need to clearly specify why this university is more significant than Istanbul University Metuboy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete anything, only you did. Lionel Cristiano? 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page has way too many images already, the added value of that one is nil, and your claims about it were false (not the best in Turkey, not one of the best in Europe). I see no good reason to include this, it isn't an essential element of Turkey (it's not as if we hide the fact that the country has good universities). Fram (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 university pictures are not too many, they do not need to be deleted. Lionel Cristiano? 09:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on that. This isn't Education in Turkey. There are only three paragraphs here about education in the country, only two about universities. Why do we need three photos to illustrate summary material on the subject? For the sake of contrast, United States, Germany, and China have one university photo each. Largoplazo (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be deleted, another university should be deleted because Galatasaray University > all Lionel Cristiano? 10:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this hasn't anything to with you support Galatasaray football club. Beshogur (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand u because u have never seen such a beautiful school in ur life. Lionel Cristiano? 12:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an excellent university by the sea and the language of instruction is French. That's why I added it. Lionel Cristiano? 15:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2024

CLOSED
See reply and previous discussions

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


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

"Türkiye" is not the country's name in the English language. To answer your questions, in order:
  • See the discussion above.
  • There is no deal. This is the English language Wikipedia. In English, the WP:COMMONNAME of the country is "Turkey".
  • Yes.
Bazza 7 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox: Establishment

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

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

and added Rise of to the Ottoman Empire point

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

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

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

PS: maybe having a Conquest of Constantinople and an Occupation of Istanbul points give a simple chronological overview structure. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is to much bloated and spammed if we add all these "established dates". Shadow4dark (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but e.g. the same part of the China article has also 8 points. But hey as a compromise how about having the Ottoman empire point link to the article of Rise of the Ottoman Empire and call it "Formation of the Ottoman Empire". Nsae Comp (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meant to be a complete short chronology, it is meant to be a quick entry noting the date of establishment. CMD (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree "complete" is illusionary when you want to give a short introduction. But what I did mean is to have a structure of that section of the infobox that gives a clear idea of the establishment. So with other words: you can either start with the date of the formation of the Republic or mention the main root of the Ottoman Empire not just its formation, particularly because Turkey understands it self as state of the Turks and not the Ottomans, and what better way than by mentioning the beys as first point. PS: the argument about the Occupation of Instanbul is a second one to consider. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anatolia was started to be called "Turchia" at the end of 12th century. So that's something we can consider. Bogazicili (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

name of the country

CLOSED
See replies, previous discussions, and formal move request that covered all this and failed only six weeks ago.

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

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

even google mapes has changed this country's name 185.108.96.26 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for our WP:COMMONNAME guideline, I'd agree with you. The country was known as Turkey for so long, and used in so many sources, that I doubt you would find a consensus to change anytime soon. See above where this just discussed in February 2024, where the consensus was to not move the article to the new name. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maybe there is sth wrong with the guideline then. this country officially changes its name and popular online platforms use the new name. if a person changes their name, all official content about them changes too, no matter how common was the previous name, all common things come to an end one day قیام (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the new name is commonly used, Wikipedia will follow suit. That is the COMMONNAME policy linked above. You could open an RfC on that page in an attempt to change that policy (I don't think it will succeed, but it's an option). But it is not a matter for this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making that argument to me doesn't change anything here. We go by community guidelines, and only a community process will change it. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too much emphasis on the Ottoman Empire in the lede

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

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

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

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

Thanks very much for your response! I don't mind the paragraphs related to pre-Ottoman history as they still form part of the history of present-day Turkey - so long as they are kept short. I do take issue with the overemphasis on Ottoman history however. True, the legacy of the Ottoman Empire forms a big part of what Turkey is today, but a lot of the content there can be condensed further. Examples: 1) the persecution and mass migration of Muslims from Rumelia to Anatolia: this part can be trimmed or removed 2) The Second Constitutional Era: this definitely belongs to the Ottoman Empire page 3) the late Ottoman genocides: this can be condensed a bit further; it is already discussed at length in the history section of the page, along with the bit about mass expulsion of Muslims mentioned earlier 4) the Three Pashas don't belong in the lede; they're more relevant to Ottoman-related pages 5) NOTHING is written about Turkey's history post-1923. This is quite disappointing, since this article is about the Turkish Republic itself. This is the issue I most disagree with. Turkish history doesn't stop at 1923. I'm okay with your suggestion to have the lede split into two halves, first half for the pre-Republican era, and second half for Turkey's contemporary history. And thanks for your courteous reminder on edit warring. Maybe I got a little too carried away there. I'll be mindful of this next time. Opening the floor to other views on this. Yekshemesh (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Turkey. So this is the main article. I'd consider mentioning Göbekli Tepe more significant than "The economy was liberalized in the 1980s, leading to stronger economic growth and political stability" sentence for example. If genocides part is going to remain, persecution of Muslims part should stay too. Otherwise, there would be a bias in the lead. I also find it significant that Ottoman Empire was basically a dictatorship when it entered WW1, and was quite different than how it was for most part of its existence (the Three Pashas part). For this sentence "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but was involved in the Korean War and joined NATO in 1952", NATO is already mentioned in the last paragraph. You could mention "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but was involved in the Korean War" but is it really that significant? I also don't want 5 paragraphs in lead as there are length limitations in the lead (see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length). Maybe something very concise can be added at the end of 3rd paragraph. Half pre 1920 and half post doesn't make sense to me given the length of history subsections. And first and 4th paragraphs could already be considered post 1920. Bogazicili (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for the end of 3rd paragraph: "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II and started economic liberalization in the 1980s" Bogazicili (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Regarding the genocides, there is a longstanding consensus via RfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey/Archive_27#RfC_Genocides), so that cannot be removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the genocide mentions are to remain in place, but per Bogazicili it would be only fair to include a (short and concise) mention of the Muslim expulsions as well.
Korean War: this is a major Cold War conflict in which Turkey played a prominent role, and was its first significant involvement on the international stage (see Turkish Brigade). It should be included. If anything, I wouldn't even mention WWII in there, a war which Turkey sat out until February 1945 and was practically never involved in.
The coups d'état of 1960 and 1980 are significant events in post-1923 Turkish history, shaping Turkish politics in each of the following decades, and should be included.
A short bit on the development of the Turkish economy should also be mentioned.
In short: it's absurd that absolutely nothing is mentioned about contemporary Turkish history after 1923 in the lede. It's like making no mention of US history after the declaration of independence, or China after the Communist takeover in 1949. We need to remedy this. The article should focus on Turkey, not the Ottoman Empire or the eras preceding it.Yekshemesh (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added something short. Again, there are space limitations in the lead. We are already over recommended word counts. Bogazicili (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bogazicili. I've trimmed the sentences further. Yekshemesh (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yekshemesh: your changes were not helpful. There was not just "en masse" migration, but also approximately 5 million dead Turks, Circassian and other Muslims. Are we only supposed to mention loss of life of Christian people in the lead (the genocide sentence)? What kind of bias is that? Also "en masse" is unnecessarily complex wording, use simpler wording. And why remove "early" from "early 20th century" part? What are you trying to achieve here, just trying to add Korean war? Bogazicili (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be belligerent, I'm actually on your side here. I added "ethnic cleansing", the definition of which includes the killing of ethnic groups (here referring to Muslim). If it were up to me I'd remove the genocide mentions in the lede altogether (both Muslim and non-Muslim) and put them in the Ottoman Empire page where they properly belong, but I acknowledge prior consensus on this.
Also, why the need to list out all the territories affected (Balkans, Crimea etc)? Is it absolutely necessary? Aren't these part of the Ottoman and Russian domains regardless? Why mention the Three Pashas, the Second Constitutional Era, the Ottoman coup of 1913? Don't you think these would be more relevant to Ottoman-related pages? Did these events have direct consequences on the modern Turkish state, which this article is about?
I would rather remove the bit about World War II (in which Turkey played virtually no active role at all), but I still left that in anyway.
The bottom line here is to be as concise as possible. These excessive details are cluttering up the lede unnecessarily. The part about migrations during the Ottoman contraction as well as the genocides against the Christian minorities is already mentioned in the history section below, for example. Lastly, your reversion also removed some grammatical corrections that I made. I hope you see my point. (ps. I left in "early" 20th century. My intention was to cut down on excessive words, but I understand that you might want the time period to be a bit more precise.) Yekshemesh (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did mass migration come from during Ottoman contraction? Arabian peninsula? North Africa? Levant? No. It came from Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. That needs to be spelled out. It was Crimean Tatars, various people from Caucasus such as Circassians and people from Balkans including Turks. Large-scale loss of life is a better description than ethnic cleansing, given what the sources are saying. There is no "ethnic cleansing" in any of the quotes in the source. You seem to be editing without reading the sources. That is very problematic. Please make your further suggestion in the talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The Caucasus and Crimea were part of the Russian Empire. If the names of these territories need to be spelt out, it can be done so in the history section. Nowhere did I mention North Africa, Arabia etc. These details are unnecessary for the lede, it's excessive clutter.
2) Propose "massive" loss of life. More words need to be trimmed. Yekshemesh (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass migration during Ottoman contraction can mean anything including North Africa, Arabia etc, since those were also part of the Ottoman Empire. Similarly Russian Empire is also big. Did Ottoman Empire receive mass migration from Moscow area?
Also millions of Turks today have partial Crimean Tatar or Circassian ancestry, or their families are Turks who migrated from Balkans, so yes it's very relevant to modern-day Turkey. "Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea" is also only 4 words. I'm surprised at your suggestions. If you just want to do an RfC about the genocide sentence, go ahead and do an RfC, instead of trying to make unnecessary cuts from rest of the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single word counts in a lede section that's already extremely cluttered, @Bogazicili:. Propose the following:
"In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims in the former Ottoman Balkans, Russian Crimea, and the Caucasus led to massive loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey." (with relevant linking to articles) Yekshemesh (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These events happened AS Ottoman Empire retreated from Balkans and AS Russian Empire expanded into Crimea and Caucasus. Your suggested wording doesn't convey that. "former Ottoman Balkans" sounds like it happened after Ottomans left. "Russian Crimea" sounds extremely problematic.
The lead is also not extremely cluttered. Earth is an FA article. Its FAC was quite recent (2022) and its lead is 575 words. What are you proposing to be added into the lead? Korean war? Bogazicili (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Turkey's role was substantial in that war, and also contributed to it joining NATO. I'd rather put that in and remove the reference to WWII, which Turkey had almost nothing to do with.
I'm not looking to start a fight here on the parts regarding persecution of Muslims. I even thanked you on some of the prior edits you made. To be clear, again, I don't disagree with the sentiment, I just disagree with how it is worded. I'll leave the sentence as is for now, although I still think it is unnecessarily convoluted.
I'm removing the mentions about the Three Pashas, the Second Constitutional Era, and the 1913 coup, and moving the sentence about Turkish dizi to another part for better structure. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with adding the Korean war. That's why I'm asking. Is there anything else besides Korean war? And no, 3 Pashas should stay, I had already trimmed that sentence. Second Constitutional Era is already removed. Bogazicili (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And may I know what's your reason for including the 3 Pashas? The gist of the sentence is that the Ottoman Empire entered WWI; who was in charge back then is only of secondary importance (since, again, this article should focus on Turkey, not the nitty-gritty details of what happened during the Ottoman era).
Aside from the Korean War, how about we mention something about the liberalization of the economy in the 1980s, which has effects into the present day? I believe that had been inserted previously.
That's probably the extent of my additions. Otherwise the lede would be too clunky (as though it weren't already). Yekshemesh (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of that sentence is "that the Ottoman Empire entered WWI", but it was under 3 pasha dictatorship. I don't think that's "nitty-gritty". The added word count is minimal. And this article does focus on Turkey. Turkey includes Ottoman past. You seem to make an artificial division. India's lead, an FA quality article, doesn't just "focus" on post-1947. Bogazicili (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Korean war, liberalization of the economy in the 1980s means we might have to talk about inflation in the 90s etc, that's too detailed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter sections will be merged

Per Wikipedia:Peer review/Turkey/archive3, shorter sections will be merged. I'll also continue to trim as necessary to bring the article size down. Will merge Tourism into Economy, and will merge Roman and Byzantine sections. Merging Roman section to Byzantine section makes more sense to me than merging Roman section to Antiquity. Bogazicili (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Turkiye not Turkey

PREVIOUSLY ANSWERED
This issue has been discussed and answered above and it has also been answered here. As is stated at the top, "This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions" and the guideline WP:COMMONNAME makes it clear the appropriate name for the article is Turkey.

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


Why wikipedia is still lagging behind everything

When the name has been officially changed, wikipedia should adopt it because majority of people rely wikipedia for information, when wikipedia is still not updated how people will use the official name ? Common sense isn't it . Please look in to this matter 2409:40F2:127:80C9:A017:EEFF:FE16:A22D (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The common name in English is "Turkey", as the § name of the country discussion above states. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The common name of Odessa isn't Odesa. The common name of Kiev isn't Kyiv. That doesn't stop Wikipedia does it now. 110.175.119.170 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This matter has been looked into 576 times so far (I'm exaggerating, but see all the previous discussions above and in this page's archives), so please review them and make yourself aware of Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME. The bottom line is that Wikipedia doesn't assume for itself the job of telling people what to call things, it gives the most weight to what people are calling them. Largoplazo (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comes up all the time because only the United States still uses this term....... the vast majority of English countries have switched over years ago..... thus outside of the United States people see it as odd. Moxy🍁 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: Really? I've only ever seen "Turkey" in my own variation of English, including from my state-owned broadcaster and (apart from messages about bilateral relations) government. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which countries you're referring to? I'm thinking that "years ago" would imply at least two, and two years ago even the Turkish government weren't systematically using Türkiye.
The reason these things come up all the time is most likely because of people - not necessarily English-speakers - have heard about the name change and don't know our rules. It's no accident that so many of the requests come from IPs and that so many make no reference at all to WP:AT and instead try to argue for WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Kahastok talk 16:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advise all users simply to revert those single purpose ips. We're discussing the same thing over and over. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just revert them. "Single-purpose IP" is quite a smear here. Everyone has a right to make an observation about an article without having created an account and edited under it before. At least a fair edit summary is necessary, along the lines of "The subject has already been discussed, please see above." Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are single purpose IPs? Do you check the threads above, and many 100s (maybe) in archive? Beshogur (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not, because, despite. You shouldn't rudely remove what is a legitimate inquiry except for the fact that it's already been covered. The entire world is not aware that the name of this article has been discussed here many times, and the vast majority of people aren't seasoned Wikipedia users who, every time they start a thread on any talk page, check, or even know to check, whether it's an old topic. Are you under the impression that wiping out good-faith, on-topic contributions without a word of explanation is acceptable? Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: I'm intrigued by your term "single-purpose IP". Can you explain what it means, and how to get one? Bazza 7 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions, per WP:COMMONNAME the appropriate name is Turkey.
This should be closed as it has been discussed repeatedly before (I think with the same individual).  // Timothy :: talk  13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

Turkey (country) should be changed to Turkiye. Country has changed its name to Turkiye and its officially accepted. As millions of people use Wikipedia, it should be corrected. Türkiye redirects to Turkey. It should be the other way. 50.67.153.3 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bother to read the discussion immediately above. WP:COMMONNAME nearly always beats WP:OFFICIAL. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=1220205592"