Talk:Turkey/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

long unclear request

Don't worry. I don't want to change country name. I just want to fix two mistakes written on this article. First of all, Türkiye is a transregional country which means it doesn't have an own region other than variants of anatolia,aegea and small balkan peninsula. It's covered by three regions and those regions are Balkans, Caucasus and the Middle East. This makes Türkiye a transregional country. It never ever become a part of Middle Eastern countries unlike Syria, Iraq, Iran or Jordan etc. Only Province we have in Middle East is the Hatay Province and I want to change "Türkiye = Country in the Middle East" to "Türkiye = Country" like other countries. Spain has a border with Morocco but does that make Spain a Northern African ? The second thing I want to change is, the type of government. Although, Türkiye is not following the constitution right now due to the current Erdogan regime. I just want to mention there are lots of political prisoners because of him. He arrested lots of people due to the criticisms he received. YouTube, Twitter and other social medias and sources even including Wikipedia are banned lots of times. I know all of these things because I was born and raised up in Türkiye so I know everything is going on. They are just trying to hide it from people like how Belarus did. Wikipedia was banned from a lot of years and maybe I'm gonna jailed too in the future because of this edit request. He jailed politicians too and "Selahattin Demirtas" and other politicians and the reason is Selahattin is talking about "Erdogan is not going to be president". They got the judge out and they put a random person to the supreme court and gave political ban plus prison to Ekrem Imamoglu. I even got sources too and here they are. Due to the constitution, Turkey is a democratic country with parliamentary republic however in reality, just ruled by a one person since country switched to presidential system. Just let me to edit wikipedia article until May 2023. We have elections on May 14th. DTDeniz (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. No part of the article currently says "Turkey = Country in the Middle East", and multiple parts of the article describe the democratic backsliding. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Somebody needs to include the historic earthquake in the history section that just happened Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have an opinion about history but I have added “ Most of the country is vulnerable to earthquakes.” to the geography section. Hope that helps Chidgk1 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Removed. You can't make a claim like that without proof. ValarianB (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Eventually I found a cite Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Too much history

There is more history in this article than in China - I think some details should be moved to the main article Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

IndeedI agree with Metuboy's point below about the comparison with China, but you're right that paring down is called for anyway, as the section is 50% larger than the main article, History of Turkey, that it's supposed to be summarizing. Largoplazo (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There is more history in this article than in China. Maybe because there is more history in this geography than China as well.. Literally first civilization is considered to be Göbeklitepe in the world. I agree that it can be summarized but it should still be longer than China. Not a proper comparison. Metuboy (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's because the history of human civilization in Turkey is older than China. Show me a single archaeological site in China that is older than Göbekli Tepe (9600 BC). The history of human civilization in the Fertile Crescent and nearby areas is older than any other place in the world, including Egypt and China. The history of the United States starts at 1776 AD, so we can't write the history of Turkey with the same length. It's impossible. Mercresis (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That's totally ridiculous. Firstly, comparing countries like that is absurd and irrelevant. Secondly, the history of China is one of the most complex and richest on the planet. If nothing else compare the geographical extent of China to Turkey. But all of that is irrelevant. The real point is that 72kb (this history section) is way too bloated for a country history section. History of Turkey is only 48kb. It's the wrong way round per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Per WP:SIZERULE even a whole article the size of this section should be divided. I'd go as far as saying a quick solution is to cut and paste the History of Turkey article into the History section of this article and replace it with the current History section. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but not all countries in the world have an equally long history. This is an encyclopedia, not a culinary blog. People read Wikipedia articles to learn. It's an easily accessible source of information for writing a homework essay, or even a thesis. The History section of the Iran article is also long, because Iran also has a very long history. You can't expect to start from 9600 BC and have a short history section. Mercresis (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with "length" of history. That's just crass. Humanity has been in Kenya the longest - should that have the largest section. Of course not. absolute nonsense. Per WP:DUE it's about what there is from academia to write about. But that's no excuse for bloating an article when it should abide by WP:SUMMARYSTYLE which this clearly does not. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You don't seem to have an understanding of how Wikipedia articles should be structured. Have you read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE? DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

/agree with DeCausa's comment above.  // Timothy :: talk  22:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, "It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article." In other words, if you have any material to add to an article in a section that itself has a "main article" hatnote, then that's where the material should go first if it isn't already there. Then, a judgment can be made as to whether it should be brought into the higher-level article. That judgment should take into account whether the additional material makes sense to include in the summary-level section or whether it's just an additional detail already covered by the higher-level article at the summary level. If it does merit coverage in the higher-level article, the material added there should only summarize what was added to the subarticle. Largoplazo (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Many people don't know that the Fertile Crescent contains the world's oldest man-made structures , settlements and urban centers (Göbekli Tepe (9600 BC) in Turkey is also within the Fertile Crescent, it is the world's oldest known man-made structural complex, dating from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period); so someone who is not a history expert may be forgiven for erroneously suggesting that perhaps the human settlements or man-made structures in China or Egypt may be older (they are not). The Fertile Crescent is the first place in the world where humans started agriculture and stopped being hunter-gatherers, which led to the formation of the first permanent settlements and urban centers. Numerous ancient civilizations have flourished in present-day Turkey, such as the Hattians, Hittites, Assyrians, Luwians, Trojans, Lydians, Lycians, Thracians, Phrygians, Urartians, Mycenaean Greeks, Ionian Greeks, Aeolic Greeks, Achaemenid Persians, Hellenistic kingdoms, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks and Ottomans, among numerous others. Few other countries in the world (if any) have seen such a large variety of different ethnic groups, cultures and states, probably due to the geographical location of present-day Turkey at the crossroads of three Old World continents. When you want to give adequate information regarding these civilizations and states, starting from around 9600 BC, of course the History section becomes long. But this is how it is supposed to be, and personally I don't find it "too detailed" at all. These cultures and states are all mentioned with brief and concise descriptions. The only exception may be the part about the Ottoman Empire (i.e., the history of Turkey from the Early Modern period to the Modern period, between the 15th and 20th centuries). But I think this is exactly where it has to be intensely detailed, as in the country articles of other European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern states. I don't think there is anything "abnormally long" or "inappropriately long" in the History section of the Turkey article. Mercresis (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Even omitting a single civilizations in this section would be non sense. All worths mentioning they have totally different social structures, langugages, architecture, religion and significant historic events. I think the size is pretty decent. I agree with Mercresis. Metuboy (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Since being repetitive appears to be assumed to have some merit here, I would like to point out again that the History section in Turkey (which is supposed to be in summary style) is longer than the corresponding main article History of Turkey. That's an obvious imbalance. The relevant guidelines are WP:SIZERULE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Yes, the historical timeline of the geographical area of modern Turkey is impressive, but still, our articles have to be both well-structured and of digestable length. –Austronesier (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should improve the main article, History of Turkey and reduce a little bit the History section in Turkey but not a large portion of it. It is just Prehistory, Antiquity and Roman Period is too rich. I would reduce the 'Seljuks and the Ottoman Empire' and also 'Republic' era details. If we need to reduce it this would be much more adequate since much shorter period of time is discussed in much more detail. Metuboy (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I managed to reduce the size by 3Kb without losing any significant information. I will further work on it. Metuboy (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You are still not getting it. Can you confirm you have read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SIZERULE. Can you explain the history section (especially when compared to History of Turkey) complies with both? DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I already said it, many sections can be fully ommited from the main article of Turkey. Especially Seljuk and Ottoman period and Republic period. I think it is possible to make it to 50 kB.

I will copy paste some of the information to History of Turkey and History of the Republic of Turkey Metuboy (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that I am looking, I also suggest that we should separate the sections for the Seljuks and Ottomans. Two subsections would make it easier to read. Metuboy (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I did some adjustments. There were many repeated information and excessive details in History section and now the section has 3800 words. This is way below the 6,000 words treshold in the guide.

Also Italian history section has 6700 words. Almost twice as Turkey!! and above the treshold. I think we should not focus on ommiting more from this page but instead improve the History of Turkey. Metuboy (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've side by side read current version and another version from Feb 9. Current version is reasonably shorter (kudos to involved editors) without omitting much of info, doesn't feel too long, or too short. We could in theory spend some time to reduce size of Ottoman section, but IMHO, it is much better time spent if we spend time on Main article: History of Turkey. nafSadh ^{did say} 06:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Add info about the February 6, 2023 earthquake

Please add info about the latest earthquake, spanning ≈4 countries, preferably to the #History section. Gustis24680 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

History sections usually contain information about past (mostly distant past), not current affairs. While this earthquake is a very unfortunate catastrophic incident and it is covered in its own article: 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes, it is unclear at this moment how it'll fit in this country's top level article. It can be covered in Geology of Turkey#Earthquakes. -- nafSadh ^{did say} 22:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

For comparison, Japan#Modern_era mentions the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake/tsunami; Indonesia#Geology mentions both the 2004 Boxing Day earthquake/tsunami and the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake; and Iran#Geography mentions the 2003 Bam earthquake. Patrick Xarles Hayes (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I added “ Turkey is vulnerable to earthquakes” to the geography section - hope that helps Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for small copyedit to be made

not sure if this is the right template but:

Hi fellow wikipedia enjoyers, I only have 400 edits so I can't edit this page but there's a space missing under Name --> Official name change, in the sentence It was reported in January 2022 that the government planned to register Türkiye with the United Nations.[41]UN and other international organisations between source [41] and UN. If someone could please insert a space there, it'd very much soothe the copy editor in me. Thanks!

Please make the following change to the article:

−

It was reported in January 2022 that the government planned to register Türkiye with the United Nations.[41]UN and other international organisations

+

It was reported in January 2022 that the government planned to register Türkiye with the United Nations.[41] UN and other international organisations

Romeowth (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Largoplazo (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

between minorites of country, there is high amout of Azeries "Azerbaijani Turks" who are living mostly in east parts of contry specialy in Iğdır, Kars, Ardahan and Ağrı provinces. Please add them in the section of demography which has ignored because of unknown reasons. Risa Aliz (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammar?

Under the section of the name change:

“UN and other international organisations informed on 31 May 2022, requesting that they use Türkiye.”

I think there is a ”were” missing. Also, shouldn’t it be ”The UN”? 2A02:AA1:1020:C907:D9BA:7E81:6E8F:84CE (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence was generally awkward. I've fixed it, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Change the name of the Republic to Türkiye

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.

---

Most of the international medias now use Türkiye since the earthquake. And all the governments around the world use it too. So it's time to change to Türkiye and respect the country. TB du CAN (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

change the name to turkiye

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 is ridiculous, are the editors on some kind of a power trip? The country has officially been renamed as Turkiye and the name of this article should be titled as such. 76.186.217.39 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The only thing on a “power trip” is Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines; we don’t use official names in article titles, but rather Wikipedia:COMMONNAMEs. This applies for all countries, including Türkiye.

Also please consider reading the FAQ and the talk page before opening another discussion. Uness232 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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:

• TFX Runway Tests 17 March 2023 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• IMG-TAI-TFX.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

2A02:1812:510:4C00:98:2FF6:B09C:E97D (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

Change In 2014, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won Turkey's first presidential election. to In 2014, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won Turkey's first direct presidential election.

Replacing "first presidential election" with something like "first direct presidential election" may be more accurate in the quote below:

"In 2014, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won Turkey's first presidential election.[155] On 15 July 2016, an unsuccessful coup attempt tried to oust the government.[156]" Denizkavi (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Since it is worded like this in the source. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Emblem for Turkey

Most other countries have an emblem or coat of arms next to their flag. Why isn't there an emblem for Turkey? Shouldn't it be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_emblem_of_Turkey? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ha! The first sentence in that link is "Turkey has no official national emblem". I understand why now. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request

The following sentence violates WP:NOPIPE:

According to Turkish state broadcaster TRT World, it was also to avoid pejorative associations with the birds.

I'm asking that it be changed to:

According to Turkish state broadcaster TRT World, it was also to avoid pejorative associations with turkeys, a type of bird.

Birdsinthewindow (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• You forgot to insert {{Edit extended-protected}}, so I put it here myself. Summer ^talk 10:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @Summer! Birdsinthewindow (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done @Birdsinthewindow Thank you for your edit request! The person who loves reading (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @The person who loves reading! Love your username, by the way. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! The person who loves reading (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Recognized languages

With the Treaty of Lausanne, Jewish, ie, Ladino; Greek and Armenian languages were recognized as minority languages. Because they are considered a religious minority... Dêrsimî62 (talk)

Can you show where exactly. I couldn't find myself. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Arabesque

The link in the music section links to arabesque art. It should link to the "Arabesque (Turkish music)" entry instead. Thanks. 2601:647:8103:E530:B471:4EBA:E0F3:1F2 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Uness232 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ukraine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hard to follow changes

@Mercresis As requested previously please could you either tick “minor” or comment your changes. I am sure most of your changes are very good but it is time wasting to scroll through pages of "diffs" to try and understand the purpose of your many changes on this important article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of your changes are still uncommented - I don’t expect perfect prose in your comments - one or 2 words for each change which is not minor would likely be enough or even jargon like “ce” for copyedit would be better than nothing Chidgk1 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mercresis In a few words what is the purpose of your changes to the economy section please? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

False precision

Please stop with the false precision. Sentences like these just make the article harder to read:

The motorway network spans 3,523 kilometres (2,189 miles) as of 2020.

According to the UNHCR, in 2018 Turkey hosted 3,564,919 registered refugees from Africa and the Middle East in total, which corresponded to 63.4% of all refugees in the world.

11.97 percent of the population speaks the Kurmanji dialect

The number of foreign students in Turkey was 795.962 in 2016.

… a total of 662,087 patients … Chidgk1 (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this is over the top in terms of precision here, these probably change daily. StellarNerd (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

establishment in infobox

it should start with 1071(selçuklu), not 1299(osmanlı). ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 10:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

At the end of section "History -> Republic of Turkey", change

The 2023 Turkish presidential election is scheduled to take place on 18 June 2023

to

The 2023 Turkish presidential election is scheduled to take place on 14 May 2023

Source:

e.g., the wikipedia article linked to the words "2023 Turkish presidential election" in the text to be changed itself... CM (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done with slightly editing. Beshogur (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

Sorenisxx (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

can i edit the religion of turkiye

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the “Article 101 anomaly”?

@Mercresis Again you are making changes which are hard to understand. “Article 101 anomaly” may be obvious to you but I have never heard of it. What does it mean and what is the purpose of your recent changes please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Constitution of Turkey, Article 101. It's on page 77 Mercresis (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"A person can be elected President (Cumhurbaşkanı) maximum two times." Mercresis (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

In Turkish: "Bir kimse en fazla iki defa Cumhurbaşkanı seçilebilir." Source: https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/mevzuat/anayasa/ Mercresis (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

In the English translation of the original Turkish text of the Constitution, there is a cleverly made "translation mistake":

https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/media/7258/anayasa_eng.pdf

"A person may be elected as the President of the Republic for two terms at most."

The original Turkish text says "two times" (iki defa), not "two terms" (iki dönem):

https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/mevzuat/anayasa/

"Bir kimse en fazla iki defa Cumhurbaşkanı seçilebilir."

It makes a huge difference, because according to this definition ("iki defa"), the President (Cumhurbaşkanı) doesn't necessarily have to complete a full term ("dönem"). For instance, Erdoğan may argue that he didn't complete a full term between 2014 and 2018 by calling early elections, but it doesn't matter, because Article 101 says "iki defa" (two times), not "iki dönem" (two terms). Mercresis (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Not taking a side on whether Erdoğan's election was legal or not, but that's not what their main argument was. The main argument was that a 'president', pre-2017, was a different position than what a 'president' is now. Especially since the Turkish legal system seemingly disagrees with you in interpretation, you should not just use the primary source of the constitution to use a clearly leading sentence structure without consulting secondary sources. Uness232 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Southeastern or Eastern European?

Can i change the term of Turkey’s geographic location from being Southeastern Europe, to just being straight up Eastern European, or does it need more discussion before being edited? CG7000 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to do this, may I ask? Turkey (when considered part of Europe) is usually grouped in with Southeastern Europe. This makes sense on a geographical, climatic and cultural level. Uness232 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it would be misleading to replace it with "Eastern". DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Turkey should be considered as Eastern European, as many Southeastern European countries, such as Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, and Serbia are usually associated with the term Eastern Europe, so it would make sense if Turkey was included as part of Eastern Europe. Feel free to debate me on this. CG7000 (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support that view? DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.intrepiddmc.com/destinations/europe/eastern-europe I have this source that lists Turkey as being part of Eastern Europe, if you don’t this that this source is the best i can find another one. CG7000 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not WP:RS so couldn't be used. There's a fair few sources that describe East Thrace as being in south eastern Europe - like this one from the OECD. I couldn't easily find one that qualifies as RS that says it's in "Eastern Europe". There may be some out there but even if there are, having now looked, it's clear to me that to use Eastern Europe would be WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Turkey today is barely part of Southeastern Europe, but certainly not part of Eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.96.192 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

Change coordinates of Ankara to 39°55′48″N 32°51′00″E

Current coordinates point to countryside outside the region. 193.210.200.91 (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mercresis blocked sock

Mercresis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sock of a long-term sockmaster. The sock has been a prolific editor at this article over the last 6 months , with nearly 800 edits since December 2022. See WP:BANREVERT for treatment of those edits. DeCausa (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this article too long?

It is about 17,600 words, and in the top 600 longest articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:Article size, particularly WP:SIZERULE. At over 15,000 (I counted closer to 19,000) words and 100KB ((it's 109KB), the article is a prime candidate for trimming, ideally by about 20% to allow leeway for further growth before it's time to reevaluate again. Largoplazo (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. ....we are currently trimming country articles that don't meet basic size. Moxy- 01:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

First step is deleting sock edits. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we make this page American English?

I think we should change the version of English from British to American. If possible, thank you. By the way, the reasons why are that most people that use Wikipedia are from the United States and that Americans speak a different version of English. However,we could make an British English Wikipedia, an International English Wikipedia, and turn the current English Wikipedia into the American English Wikipedia 2001:EE0:5729:20F0:1418:7812:16CB:E79F (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines at MOS:ENGVAR apply throughout Wikipedia. This is not American English Wikipedia, and if you were to propose that we make it American English Wikipedia, the place to propose that wouldn't be at this one arbitrary article! Largoplazo (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If COMMONNAME applied to style-related stuff, I'm afraid all of Wikipedia would become American. WP:ENGVAR exists to prevent such a bias. Summer ^talk 05:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

In infobox, change "assembly speaker" to "speaker of the assembly" and "chief judge" to "chief justice" for consistency with other country articles. 31.223.50.10 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Xan747 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think these are the official names. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Official translations are "Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye" and "President of the Constitutional Court" Also in Wikipedia they're called Speaker of the Grand National Assembly and President of the Constitutional Court too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.44.135 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 July 2023 (2)

Please add "|expiry = 2023-12-01". This moratorium expires on that day, no? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about use of "Türkiye" in flag templates

This discussion may be of interest to editors at this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

As a follow-up to that discussion, I nominated the redirect {{Country data Türkiye}}, which displays as Türkiye, for deletion in this discussion. It may be possible to edit the redirect such that it displays "Turkey" instead of "Türkiye" if that is desirable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as "Keep", so if you don't want this name to appear next to Turkish flags in articles, you're on your own to find and fix them manually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding Emblem of Turkey into to the infobox since the country does not have a coat of arms.

I’m proposing to add the Emblem of Turkey into the infobox as on German Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on this? If it’s ok, can someone do this change? Thanks. P.S. I found two designs of emblems on Wikimedia; the first one is used in almost every official documents and the second one is used mostly in diplomatic missions of Turkey. 176.55.148.165 (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Unnecessary as it's basically the exact same thing as the flag. That's just my opinion though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, it’s almost the same thing like as the Swiss flag and the coat of arms/emblem… 149.140.246.66 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Turkey has no official emblem Shadow4dark (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

So does France, but it still placed in the infobox of that article. Dziugreb (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't mean it is correct to place an emblem that isn't official. And I don't see much serious discussion regarding this on France's talk page archives. Only argument is "French wikipedia uses this". Beshogur (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Also it is false that Turkish MFA uses that particular design. On passports it is a golden one, while on ID card it has a shade. Beshogur (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Legalization/Decriminalization

@Andwats Thank you for your edit. The problem I find with it is that decriminalization can mean a wide range of things. The law prohibiting sodomy (although very rarely, if ever used) was in force until 1853. This law was no longer in force after this. I do not particularly understand your rationale for calling this decriminalization instead of legalization; as it was both, and LGBT history in Turkey uses the two terms in the same sense. Uness232 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The section of this article in question is a summary of the LGBT_rights_in_Turkey, see the guidelines at the top of this talk page. That article uses "decriminalization" in all headers, particularly the header "Decriminalization (1858)." Nowhere does that article say homosexuality was legalized or that there was a law which provided legalization of same-sex relationships in any shape. Therefore the sentence in this article which says "Homosexual activity has been legal in Turkey since 1858." conflicts with the source article that this section is, again, a summary of. This article is not a space for debate about legally precise terminology it should merely reflect (and not conflict with) articles it references. There are also articles on decriminalization and Legalization if you are interested in understand the precise distinctions. However, the appropriate thing to do would be to change LGBT_rights_in_Turkey, if you have a source which says the change in 1858 was legalization as opposed to decriminalization, rather than to change it here. I will be, once again, reverting your undo. Andwats (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the myriad of distinct and sometimes overlapping ways in which these terms are used. In this case, no new laws on the matter have been passed/rescinded since 1858, and ILGA calls same-sex relations "legal" in Turkey. The 1858 law was inspired by the French penal code, which has a similar "public decency" caveat. Yet LGBT rights by country or territory would claim that same-sex relations in France have been "legal" since 1791. The reality is, these terms here are being used interchangeably, and Wikipedia generally favors "legal" for same-sex relations laws. Uness232 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The article cited for "Homosexual activity has been ... in Turkey since 1858" uses the word decriminalization. Here is it's byline "A new paper shows 18th- and 19th-century Ottoman rulers decriminalised homosexuality and promoted women's education." Here is the link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07/ottoman-empire-secular-history-sharia. It does not once use the word legal. So not only does "decrimalize" conform to the language of LGBT_rights_in_Turkey AND to the citation in this article, there is no reference to "legal" or "legalization" in the citation used for the very sentence we are discussing. So, that to me is the end of the story. Andwats (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andwats Fine, I suppose. I do not have the energy nor the motivation to go through sources right now. I will question one thing though. If what happened in 1858 was decriminalization, and homosexual activity is legal in Turkey today (per ILGA for example), what changed and when? If these concepts are different in this case, something must have changed in between. Uness232 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link for the ILGA referring to the current state in Turkey being legalization? A lot can change in 165 years, but since Turkey doesn't have a protection against discrimination for same-sex relationships and doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, I'd definitely be interested in understanding what the ILGA's criteria are. Andwats (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like in this map, ILGA refers to Turkey only as having decriminalized same-sex sexual acts: https://ilga.org/map-sexual-orientation-laws-overview-2017 Andwats (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andwats The map does not distinguish between legalization and decriminalization however. The list they provide in pg. 172 here (from the same paper) considers Turkey in the "legal" category, and there is no mention of a "decriminalized" category. ILGA's only criteria here (which is generally used for both the concepts of decriminalization and legalization of same-sex relationships), are whether there are laws that restrict same-sex relations. Turkey does not have a law of this kind. If you have a different definiton of legalization, I would not know, but in this case both can be used in overlapping ways. Uness232 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

They don't seem to provide a definition of what they mean there. They do refer to at least one change of law on page 175, YY v Turkey, so presumably there have been others in 165 years. The difference is well defined in decriminalization and legalization. For instance, the 1858 law in Turkey retained penalties for related acts and as per LGBT_rights_in_Turkey this is quantifiable decriminalization. You brought up France before, I'd have to dig further. But my current understanding is that the 1791 change removed all penalties, although some were reintroduced in 1810 and then by the 1840s authorities used lewdness laws to criminalize same-sex behavior. So it's true that the 1791 law legalized same-sex relations, but it could be noted that the later 1810 law and policing in the 1800s resulted in decriminalization. Andwats (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andwats 1) There is no such thing as "quantifiable decriminalization". Decriminalization is a concept, which can be defined in certain ways; Wikipedia uses this distinction between legalization and decriminaliation: "Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations." The vagueness of this is notable. What counts as an "associated law"?

2) The Ottoman Law was translated from the French law, as LGBT rights in Turkey identifies.

3) Turkish laws were completely rewritten after 1923, but no law relating to same-sex relations has been created or repealed. Public decency laws have not been completely repealed either, but I have not seen them being used in this fashion. I have seen news of this being levied against drag queens, but not same-sex relations, if they do not involve public nakedness (in which case all relations, same-sex or not, are illegal). So are the public decency laws "associated laws?" In 1858?. Now? So what you are saying is "quantifiable" I would argue is vague and, in this case, quite an unnecessary distinction. Law enforcement, state-forces etc. can bend and extend vaguely written rules to different lengths if they so wish; examples abound on this from US book bans to Turkey's laws on protest. But there is a spectrum here, and one that can not be neatly grouped into two. One article of the LGBT rights in Turkey article argues that the 1858 laws "partial decriminalization", using decriminalization as a synonym for legalization, qualifying your concept as "partial".

I would favor "legal" as terminology simply because it is recognizable and easily understandable, as a sort of "there is no law preventing same-sex relations directly", and as an antonym to illegal. Of course homophobic actors ca/do use other laws against queer people. They do this in countries with marriage equality as well. Uness232 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1) So, what is quantifiable is that the 1858 law retained fines and other penalties. Ergo, criminalization was removed but associated laws were retained.

2) The Ottoman law was translated from the 1810 French code, not the events of 1791, which is an important distinction.

3) What happened after 1923 is not a concern here. But I would guess the interpretation and enforcement of the law has changed since 1858. I suspect the one specific place that ILGA uses legal has been done so as a gloss, since their more readily available current material uses decriminalization. But again, the point is that the citation in this article uses decriminalization, and the article linked from this article uses decriminalization. "Legal" is the vague word here, there are no additional protections, e.g. against discrimination, and no positive sense of legality, there's no right that is enshrined. But the point is, the precise and consistent term is decriminalized since it is used in the associated article and the sources associated to this article. If one, felt it was the wrong term, then again the place to edit would be LGBT_rights_in_Turkey. I do agree with the wording used to describe the 1858 law as only partially decriminalization (although decriminalization is always a partiality one might argue) since it did not decriminalize actions in "public." What happened in France, for instance, after ~1830 was that the 1810 law's sense of private and public was eroded until the point that authorities applied the lewdness prohibitions on the basis that public meant "anyone could walk in" even in the case of private homes. Andwats (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point and still disagree with it to a large extent. However, I no longer have enough energy to talk about this. Have a nice day. Uness232 (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Add empire on Establishment

Under the establishment, the empire Seljuk Empire is missing. Should we add that? THEGoldberg1 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@THEGoldberg1: The republic is a direct continuation of the Ottoman Empire (state organizations etc.) while I don't see a connection to the Seljuks at all. Beshogur (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct this please

Wrong: "Turkey was home to important Neolithic sites like Göbekli Tepe"

Right: "Turkey is home to important Neolithic sites like Göbekli Tepe"

Thanks. 212.174.190.23 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. Largoplazo (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Please add category

Category:Dialogue partners of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

-- MaliMail (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

This is a clumsy edit. It doesn't better the text, it makes the text worse. 212.174.190.24 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

Please add this template to where the other templates for membership in international organizations are.

--- MaliMail (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No indication given of what "this template" is. Largoplazo (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

the Shanghai Cooperation Organization MaliMail (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was looking for you to name the template. It went right by me that you'd embedded the template itself. However, I'm going to leave this for someone else to consider, as I'm not terribly familiar with common practices with navboxes. It seems to me that (a) if there was a navbox for every organization that a country belonged to, there'd be dozens of navboxes at the bottom of the article, which seems undesirable for reasons including unwieldiness and the reasons noted at WP:Navigation template#Template limits, and (b) the organization isn't mentioned in the article (though the category is attached), and I'm not sure the template is sufficiently relevant for that reason. Largoplazo (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

it is about membership in international organizations so it goes with templates like the nato one MaliMail (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Though I didn't use the word "international", I indicated in my previous comment my understanding that it's about membership in an organization, and of course I understand that it's international. In addition, the article also doesn't have the NATO navbox. Still, you haven't responded to what I wrote. But, as I said, I'll leave it to other with more experience to determine what's appropriate here. Largoplazo (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done It's well-established practice that a navbox should be used on all articles it links to. Largoplazo is making a somewhat-decent argument for deletion of the entire navbox, and is welcome to take it to TfD, but until such time as someone does so it should be added. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Why no mention on Armenian Genocide

We can find Holocaust section in Germany, Imperial war crimes in Japan but no mention on Armenian genocide in Turkey? Genocide is not a political term, rather a judicial one. It is a crime that should have been mentioned in here. Why it has no mention? Ethnic cleaning in Anatolia is historically approved and recognized by almost entire (except "turkish") historians as well as Wikipedia itself. What are you gonna do? Block Wikipedia again? You can't escape from the reality. Please make a section for Armenian Genocide/ethnic cleaning of various ethnicities in Anatolia e.g Assyrians, Armenians and Pontic Greeks. Administrators and Wikipedians should vote and discuss about this. It means a lot for children who raise without their family. Imagine your entire family slaughtered in deserts and years later people make jokes about this and play three wise monkeys. Even it exists in Turkish Wikipedia. Don't mods think it deserves a small mention at least?

@Buidhe @Sheila1988 @TimothyBlue @Armen Ohanian @Ian Rose @UserXpetVarpet 176.54.42.162 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the lead and in Turkey#Ottoman_Empire EvergreenFir (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The assertion of an Armenian Genocide is not grounded in historical fact. During times of conflict and war, the notion of genocide is unfounded, and this claim is entirely false. Western nations tend to embrace these untruths, seemingly ignoring the glaring truth and looking elsewhere to avoid confronting it. The course of history cannot be altered merely through discussions. 91.93.229.148 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Name change

A moratorium is a moratorium

Yes, another one of these. I will list my arguments in simple and concise points. And yes, I realise there is a moratorium. Please feel free to read now but I kindly do not expect any actions or decisions to be made until after 1 December 2023 regarding this. 1. The current policy has changed from what many called "common name (WP:COMMONNAME)," which was "Naming conventions" to the current "Article titles" (Wikipedia:Article titles). See here: Wikipedia:Official names 2. In Wikipedia:Article titles, if you scroll to "Places" and "Specific topics", Turkey/Türkiye is not mentioned. This means Wikipedia does not have a specific policy surrounding this country, while it does for others. 3. With the news of UEFA Euro 2032 being held in Italy and Türkiye, it is getting harder to defend the justification of using its previous name. UEFA, a huge organisation is using the "Türkiye" spelling in all its media and promotional content. CGTN, one of the biggest news channels in the world is using the updated spelling too. It is ridiculous that we are getting to the point where we are showing promotional images with the new spelling on Wikipedia pages but still using the old spelling in the article, it is unnecessarily confusing. 4. Türkiye is shown in britannica.com and dictionary.com as an alternative spelling. It is missing in Cambridge dictionary but they show "Côte d'Ivoire" as an alternative spelling, so there could be some bias or hypocrisy there. 5. In Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) it states clearly at the top of the page "occasional exceptions" may apply, this is treated to every guideline within the page. Here are some less strong arguments but still important: 6. If and when India does change its name to "Bharat" in the same way Türkiye did, I am 100% certain Wikipedia will use its new name eventually if Indian people are bothered by it and make a big fuss. The same thing would happen with China. 7. People who undergo a sex change operation or simply identify as the opposite sex and get a new name almost always have their pages updated even if it is not their most common or widely known name yet. You could argue it is becaused news and media use their updated name, but that does not reflect the number of actual people using it and not to mention they have political reasons to avoid any kind of backlash. The same things happen with most organisations or companies. 8. Lastly, we should update the name for respect for national identity, accuracy and inclusivity, international standards and encouraging global cultural awareness. Holy Sepulchre (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This article name discussion has very different considerations to those involved with WP:BLPs, that is not a comparison that will help the discussion move forward. CMD (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Then disregard point 7, what about the rest? Someone advocating for its current spelling cannot possibly make a better, more compelling or numerous arguments beyond simply "this is protocol." Holy Sepulchre (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Reputable English-language sources still haven't switched over to Türkiye. You mention the Euro 2032 announcement as an example, but the BBC, CNN, ESPN and pretty much every English-language source I can find used "Turkey" in their stories on the announcement. Even the other host nation for Euro 2032 used "Turkey" in their announcement (FIGC.it). How about Reuters? Or Al Jazeera? The Associated Press? Le Monde? – PeeJay 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This addresses the second half of point 3, nothing more. The fact most news organisations still use the old spelling is completely expected but does not reflect the rest of the world. Naturally, they are less likely to use its new spelling because of strict guidelines and recognisability. But the BBC for example has made numerous posts and videos on its new spelling, so they address it there. Their guidelines demand they not call terrorists as terrorists either, they use the term militants for all of them regardless of how recognised they are internationally as terrorists. So, should we now remove any assertion on Wikipedia which classifies Hamas as terrorists just because the BBC calls them militants? You are completely ignoring the fact exceptions can apply and most of the points I made. You have one very basic argument around one guideline and I just gave eight. Why do you think yours is stronger or matters more? Holy Sepulchre (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The default name in English is still "Turkey"

Closed due to FAQ in the header of this talk page about the name Turkey.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Turkish government's official state media gave two reasons why the government now uses the name "Türkiye" instead of "Turkey" in English, both of which are based on the fact that it is spelled in English like the bird (🦃) and neither of which is permitted as a reason for changing terminology on Wikipedia: to affect the Google results that people get and to avoid an association with the "not flattering" colloquial meaning of "turkey." Both are actually reasonable goals from the point of view of a government, but Wikipedia obviously cannot join in a campaign (by a company, a government, or any other group) whose stated purposes are 1) to change the Google search results that people see & 2) to avoid embarrassment. Also: not only is this article called "Turkey," but when I began this topic I got a notice, to anybody planning to request the article's name to be changed, that it will remain "Turkey" for at least the next year. Which makes sense, because although names do sometimes change over time in English (Beijing was "Peking" 50 years ago) as of 2023 the default spelling is still overwhelmingly "Turkey." ) t UrielAcosta (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Oh come on. We talked this like for months with tens of users. Did you discover this today? Beshogur (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC) FYI. Beshogur (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) There is also, by the way, a hidden note (visible in the edit space, where anybody changing the text can see it) saying "DO NOT change to Türkiye. The subject of Turkey's name rebrand is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on Wikipedia supporting the use of Türkiye in English text." Please do not change the English again until such a convenience had been achieved. UrielAcosta (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) That's actually about the page title, not the official name. See also Ivory Coast which has non English name. Beshogur (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) But google does default to Türkiye and uses that spelling in all its apps. The US department of state refers to the country as Turkey (Türkiye). 2603:7080:B2F0:8B30:60F0:927:2DDA:DAA6 (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Restored Talk:Turkey/Archive 36#RfC on the official name of the country in the lede (2)Moxy- 22:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Top 5 articles with titles that some perceive as dated

A moratorium on this topic is currently in place
I'm sure that this article and Twitter are currently 2 of them, but can you name all the top 5?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) We still use Czech Republic doktorb wordsdeeds 04:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Turkish president's website says that Turkey has a coat of arms

Why isn't the coat of arms being displayed on this page? It says on the Turkish president's website, https://cbddo.gov.tr/kurumsal-kimlik/, that this symbol, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_the_Presidency_of_Turkey.svg, is the coat of arms of the President and the country of Turkey. It says:

"Arma / Güvenlik Alanı : Arma, Cumhurbașkanlığı’nın ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin amblemi niteliğindedir."

which translates to :

"Coat of Arms / Security Area: The coat of arms is the emblem of the Presidency and the Republic of Turkey."

So why isn't this being displayed here? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if that makes a difference but the Turkish text says "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin" and not "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin" or just "Türkiye". Also, besides this website, all other sources say that this coat of arms is only the Presidential Seal of Turkey. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed this. [1] as far I can see this was added after May 2020. I searched and couldn't find any other mention anywhere. English version doesn't mention this either. Beshogur (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

June 09th was when the document here was stamped: https://www.tccb.gov.tr/assets/dosya/resmisimgeler/arma.pdf Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Also relevant is this excerpt from the parent website of that link, https://www.tccb.gov.tr/cumhurbaskanligi/resmi-simgeler/fors/:

"Halen yürürlükte olan 25.01.1985 günlü, 85/9034 sayılı Türk Bayrağı Tüzüğü’nün 28. maddesi ile bu maddenin gönderme yaptığı ilgili örneğine göre bugünkü fors kullanılmaktadır. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Forsu’ndaki güneşin Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ni, 16 yıldızın ise bağımsız Türk Devletlerini temsil ettiği görüşünü ilk kez, 1969 yılında, Harita Yb. Akîp Özbek Türkiye Cumhurbaşkanlığı Forsu ve Taşıdığı Anlam isimli kitabında ortaya koymuştur. Bu görüş izleyen yıllarda kabul görmüştür."

translated as:

"According to Article 28 of the Turkish Flag Regulation No. 85/9034, dated 25.01.1985, which is still in force, and the relevant example referred to by this article, today's force is used. The view that the sun on the Presidential Seal represents the Republic of Turkey and the 16 stars represent the independent Turkish States was first introduced in 1969 by the Map Yb. Akîp Özbek put it forward in his book titled "Turkish Presidential Emblem and Its Meaning". This view was accepted in the following years." Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This means the middle start represents Turkey. Also the decree doesn't mention the emblem of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The decree was for the flag, the book gave the symbol its current meaning. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you need decree for a flag? The decree talks about where to use the presidential emblem. Beshogur (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The decree is to ensure the flags are created in the correct way, the measurements and materials and whatnot. Maybe take a look at the source first and you'll see why the presidential emblem is relevant. It's the big giant image that the entire source is talking about. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I know. Perhaps leave it to the people who know what they are talking about then? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This presidential website [2] has a similar message: "Presidential Logo is the visual symbol of the Presidency and the Republic of Türkiye." Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh sure because the president represents the republic. Beshogur (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean the presidential logo, not the president, as is stated there in plain English. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there one reliable secondary source that says that the Presidential Seal of Turkey is also the coat of arms of the Republic of Turkey? I couldn't find one (I think that https://cbddo.gov.tr/kurumsal-kimlik/ is a weak source). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I found this excerpt from Ataturk University's Turkic Studies Journal[3] talking about how the coat of arms was created by Ataturk himself and continues on in the form of the Presidential seal:

"Bugün Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin kullandığı, Türkiye Cumhur Başkanlığı bayrağını (kırmızı zemin üzerinde bitmez tükenmez Türklük kaynağını ifade eden güneş etrafında dizilen; şimdiye kadar Türk tarihinde kurulmuş olan on altı büyük Türk devletini-imparatorluğunu sembolize eden her biri, birer parlayan ve etrafını aydınlatan yücelerde yıldızlarla ifade edilen bayrak) bizzat M. Kemal Atatürk düzenleyerek, Türklük ülküsü ve tarih şuuru konularında ne denli bilgili ve duyarlı olduğunu, sanatsal olgulara dikkat ettiğini bir kez daha gösterecektir.75 Bu konuda yani Cumhuriyet Türkiye’sinin resmî devlet arması her ne kadar tartışmalı bir konu olsa da hatıra ve belgeler ışığında O’nun zamanında bu konular üzerinde ciddi şekilde kafa yorulduğu ve mesai harcandığıdır.76 Bütün kuvvetini milletinin inandığı mümtaz değerlerden alan, zaman geçtikçe şahsı ve eserleri hakkında son ve kat’i hüküm hiçbir vakit verilemeyecek olan Türk kültür ve medeniyetine ömrü borunca hizmet eden77 M. Kemal Atatürk, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin kurucusu olarak “ ay-yıldızlı al-bayrağı” aynen devam ettirmekle Türk milletinin ve Türk devletinin kültür ve medeniyet değerlerinin sürekliliğini ölümsüzleştirmiştir. Zira öteden beri Türk tarihinde ortaya çıkan çeşitli Türk devlet ve toplulukları sık sık bayrak ve sancaklar konusunda ciddi birtakım yapısal değişimlere giderken O, tarihî perspektifte yüzlerce yıldır Türk milletinin kullandığı bayrağı ve sancağı asla değiştirmemiştir. Cumhuriyet Türkiye’sinin birçok kurum ve kuruluşunun amblem/arması, (Türkiyat Enstitüsü, Türk Tarih Kurumu vb.) bizzat Atatürk’ünde katkılarıyla tasarlanmıştır. Gerçektende Türklük ruhu ve bilinci ile dolu olan M. Kemal Atatürk, öteden beri Türk tarihinde kullanılan hem kutsal renkleri hem de millî sembolleri tanıyıp bildiğini açıkça bu tür çalışmalarıyla kanıtlamıştır"

translated as:

"Presidency of Turkey, used today by the Republic of Turkey flag (the sun symbolizing the inexhaustible source of Turkishness on a red background). lined up around; sixteen major Turkish cities established so far in Turkish history. Each symbol symbolizing its state-empire is a shining and illuminating environment. The flag expressed with stars on high) was organized by M. Kemal Atatürk himself, how knowledgeable and sensitive he is about his ideals and historical consciousness, and his artistic facts. will show once again that he pays attention.75 In this regard, that is, the Republic of Turkey's Although the official state coat of arms is a controversial issue, in the light of memories and documents In his time, serious thought was given to these issues and 76 It is the time spent, which derives all its strength from the distinguished values in which its nation believes. M. Kemal Atatürk, Turkey, who served the Turkish culture and civilization throughout his life, about whose personality and works the final and definitive judgment will never be made as time goes by. As the founder of the Republic of Turkey, By continuing the same "Take the flag with the crescent and star" The continuity of the cultural and civilizational values of the Turkish nation and the Turkish state immortalized it. Because various Turkish states and states that have emerged in Turkish history for a long time. communities often undergo serious structural changes regarding flags and banners. On his way, he saw the flag that the Turkish nation had used for hundreds of years in historical perspective and He never changed the flag. Many institutions and organizations of the Republic of Turkey The emblem/coat of arms (Turkish Studies Institute, Turkish Historical Society, etc.) was made by Ataturk himself. Designed with contributions. M. Kemal, who is truly full of Turkish spirit and consciousness Atatürk used both the sacred colors and the national symbols that have long been used in Turkish history. He clearly proved that he knew the symbols with such works." Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither clear nor convincing. It says that it's a controversial issue.

The Turkish Wikipedia gives more information on the topic: tr:Türkiye arması: 2014 yılının Ağustos ayında ise iktidarda bulunan Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi'nin Şanlıurfa Milletvekili Zeynep Karahan Uslu, resmî olarak yeni bir armanın tasarlanması için 30 Milletvekiliyle birlikte "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti Resmî Armasının Belirlenmesi Hakkında Kanun Tasarısı"nı partisinin Grup Başkanlığı'na sunmuştur.

Another RS: https://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/turkiye-cumhuriyetinin-resmi-armasi-belirlenecek-162094.html

Türkiye'nin bir devlet armasının bulunmamasının önemli bir eksiklik olduğuna işaret eden Uslu, köklü bir tarihsel ve kültürel geçmişe sahip devletin arması olması gerektiğini belirtti. [...] Devlet armasının oluşturulması halinde mevcut uygulamada kullanılan cumhurbaşkanlığı forsunun kaldırılabilmesinin yasal bakımdan önünün açılacağını savunan Özgündüz, şu değerlendirmelerde bulundu: "Burada bir başka sıkıntı çıkacaktır; Türk Bayrağı tüzüğünde şu anda kullanılan cumhurbaşkanlığı forsu var. Cumhurbaşkanı devletin başı sıfatıyla onu kullanıyor. Yarın siz devlet arması yaptığınız anda 'ben devletin başıyım, dolayısıyla bu armayı kullanacağım' diyerek mevcut forsu kaldırabilir. Kanun, tüzükten üstte olduğu için bu uygulanacaktır. Dolayısıyla ilk kez Atatürk tarafından 1922'de İzmir ziyaretinde kullanılan bu mevcut cumhurbaşkanlığı forsu da zımnen ilga edilmiş olacaktır. [...] "İyi niyetten şüphem yok ama halkın belirlediği bir sembol var zaten. O da ay ve yıldızdır. 'Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin niye arması yok?' diye sorduğunuz zaman, toplum buna ihtiyaç hissetmiyor. Ay-yıldız var zaten. Ay-yıldız aynı zamanda devletin de sembolüdür. Bu ay-yıldız yerine başka bir sembol belirleyecek olursanız kıyamet kopacak, gereksiz bir tartışma çıkacak. Ne söylerseniz söyleyin, tersini söyleyen de çıkacaktır. Herkesin kabul ettiği ay,yıldız varken ayrı bir sembol arayışı zaman kaybına gereksiz bir tartışmaya yol açacaktır. Ortada bir boşluk yok. Anayasa'nın üçüncü maddesine bir ilave yapar, 'Ay-yıldız aynı zamanda devletin sembolüdür' deriz."

So Turkey does not have coat of arms. Until a new law is adopted. End of the debate? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The TRTHaber article is very interesting and sheds a lot of light on why this topic is so controversial, as someone that had no idea about any of this controversy two days ago it's been very fascinating for me to learn about all of this. i would say that this ends the debate for now but that article is almost nine years old at this point. Has there been no update on this since January 2015? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't know the topic was this controversial either. (Worth using this source to improve National emblem of Turkey btw). As far as I know, there's been no progress. Given how polarized Turkish society is, it seems unlikely that Turkish politicians will reach a consensus on this any time soon. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There had been law proposal to design one in 2015 but nothing. Beshogur (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggested ways to shorten

I see a tag on there that says the article may be too long. Then it says to contribute to the discussion on the length. There is no discussion of the length. I read what it says about the moratorium. As far as I can make out, this discussion does not come under the moratorium. Yes, of course the article is way too long. For some reason Turkey is a very emotional topic and everyone wants to pitch in. Turkey seems to be at the center of some hot issues. But, here is how we can cut down. First of all, in the history of the west Turkey is a new country. It arises on territory that was formerly other countries. Each of those other countries has multiple articles. And yet, we try to treat those topics under Turkey. I suggest we begin Turkey with the arrival of the Turks. Good Lord, we can't put all those topics under here, it would take up half of Wikipedia. Secondly, I notice a lot of topics are highly specialized aspects of Turkish culture. Can't these be moved to their own articles? Well, I hope I have not stepped on the moratorium. I hope that, while we are waiting to work on the article, you will take up THIS discussion and arrive at some consenuses.Botteville (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The sub-articles already exist, it's a matter of shifting detail there and writing in WP:Summary style here. This is a very common problem, not a Turkey-specific one (although the 26kB history section is somewhat egregious). CMD (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would be great if you (or anyone else) could move some details to existing sub-articles Chidgk1 (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Name section is extremely long. I will shorten it soon. 148.78.116.4 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@148.78.116.4: Do you or anyone else have time to condense the name section? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

The nanme of this counrty is called Turkiye and not turkey 62.72.122.130 (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is true, The name of the Country has been changed and already written officially Turkiye. So the caption of this article should be "Turkiye" 91.93.229.148 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone know where to find total 2022 foreign trade stats by sector?

Turkstat seems to have them for individual months but does anyone know where to find for the complete year? I ask as I am updating agriculture in Turkey and want to know what share of exports were from agriculture in 2022 Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/tur#:~:text=Exports%20The%20top%20exports%20of,and%20Iraq%20(%2411.1B). Moxy- 11:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy Ah I did not know about that site. I could not find the agriculture share as a total though as there was so much detail. However the fact that Turkey is the world's biggest importer of sunflower seeds was new to me and may be useful for a DYK hook thanks very much Chidgk1 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please comment changes or label them "minor"

Hello @Metuboy

You have only commented one of the many changes you made today. Please could you give us a brief overview of their purpose as I am struggling to understand from diffs Chidgk1 (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

The article is reduced in size significantly a few days ago and there were many sandwiching of text between the images. So I tried to fix them by removing some images and adjusting their positions inside the article. Indeed I should have added Minor option for them.

I am not sure if it is possible add Minor option or add a comment later on. If it is possible I am not aware of it.

But this is the main change that I did though the articles. Also I added some See Also and Main Article hyperlinks for some sections. Since they were missing and readers might want to get more information about the specifics. Metuboy (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Why arent the Turkish Sultanate of Rum or the Turkish Principalitys included in the establishment part of the Turkey info box?

I would want them to be included.. DaManFrFr (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

For much the same reason as the one given to you in Talk: Greece. Uness232 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I back that, since modern Turkey and Anatolia overlaps pretty much, the beginning of Turkish presence in Anatolia should be mentioned in the establishmentinfobox. Main events are : Battle of Manzikert and founding of Sultanate of Rum Yakamoz51 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, modern Turkey and Anatolia only really overlap in Turkish nationalist discourse. See Anatolia for more information on that. Also, the Sultanate of Rûm was a very different state than modern Turkey for a variety of reasons. Modern historiography contends that the late Ottoman Empire (post-1800s) was really the only administrative predecessor to Turkey. Uness232 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking for better lead pic for Agriculture in Turkey

If you have any idea please suggest at Talk:Agriculture_in_Turkey#Any_suggestions_for_better_lead_picture? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

The page source has the template Use American English, but the page notice says to use British English. Should it be changed? Super yoshi013021 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Pending – I've submitted an edit request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Turkey. Tollens (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The talk page header still says "This article is written in British English", and is in the category Wikipedia articles that use British English. ThunderMite42 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for the catch – fixed now. Tollens (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sports

"Other mainstream sports such as basketball and volleyball are also popular. The men's national basketball team and women's national basketball team have been successful."

No word about women's volleyball? World champs in girls, European champs in adults, many more international success stories both by national selections and clubs in all age groups. Where are the -mostly- Greek and Armenian editors who work hard everyday to add more and more shit to (I mean "improve" - sic) this article? They should write a long section on Turkish women's volleyball here (other than giving a link to the related article) and "maybe" we could forgive a small part of their sins in Wikipedia. Regards. 212.174.190.24 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A sea of blue

@Fatihoztrk950: With increasing speed, you have introduced and re-introduced a "sea of blue links"[4][5][6][7][8], although three editors have tried to explain (so far only via edit summaries) that the manual of style discourages to have multiple adjacent linked pieces of text. In this context, I am confused that you mention the infobox of United States; if you refer to the corresponding parameter |government_type= in that article, it goes: Federal presidential constitutional republic, which is clearly not a sea of blue. Austronesier (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, I apologize for the editing war. I am really trying to do my best for the Turkey page. I saw many unnecessary edits on this page and intervened. In the case of the United States, I found that the title "Federal, presidential, constitutional, republic" where the word "constitutional" is related to the United States Constitution and provides an additional means of information for readers. I implemented this because using it for the Turkey page would also be an additional resource for readers. But I just saw it. You have edited that page according to the current rules. This is enough for me. So, I do not think it is right to discriminate against a page on this issue. That was my goal. Fatihoztrk950 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What about "Presidential unitary republic based on the Constitution of Turkey"? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit longish for an infobox entry. But sure, we should be open (for my part, I absolutely am) for a concise solution that can accomodate User:Fatihoztrk950's rationale and at same time doesn't give the reader a doubt where they have to click on if they want more infomation about a piece of linked text. –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Constitutional presidential unitary republic? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Yurkey" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Yurkey has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § Yurkey until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

National emblem of Turkey

There is no state coat of arms regulated according to the current constitution of the Republic of Turkey. However, instead of the state coat of arms, the red crescent and star on a vector base is used in official documents and state figures. As can be seen from the information available on the France page, the same situation is valid in France. The Republic of France does not have an official state coat of arms constitutionally. Even though it does not have an official status, it is clearly used on the page. In this context, I argue that it should be added to the Turkey page as additional visual information for readers. Fatihoztrk950 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

i found some stuff that was inaccurate Aererae (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – bradv 01:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Establishment

The Turkification of Anatolia as well as the region being called “Turkey(Turchia)” dates back to the early 11th century. Why does it start from 1299AD? I suggest that to be changed as 1046AD (Battle of Ganja) or 1071AD (Battle of Manzikert). 2001:14BB:695:D77:841B:DFEF:BDCA:7A2D (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

False date establishment

The first Turkish state which ruled over this territory dates back to 1071AD what is the point of stating 1299AD? Besides that there are many other countries where even small principalities are mentioned in their establishment. We are talking about an Turkish empire which was founded in this area, ruled here and was internationally known as “Turchia”. The Seljuk sultanate of Rum was by all means the predeseccor of modern day Turkey. 178.247.19.166 (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

• Population
• Hi, can you update Turkey's 2023 population number ?
• 1 2023 population: 85,816,190

LionelCristiano (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Can you do this ? LionelCristiano (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done @LionelCristiano: The reference given is to a projection, not an current population figure, so I will not update the article with the information requested. Bazza (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References