Wikipedia

Talk:Turkey/Archive 36

< Talk:Turkey
Latest comment: 1 year ago by DavidArnold in topic RfC on the official name of the country in the lede (2)
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Turkey authoritarian dictatorship

Latest comment: 1 year ago41 comments7 people in discussion

Why was the word authoritarian dictatorship added? very clearly misidentified Global technologyy (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

.Why was this removed? ..Easily sourced.... perhaps asking for better sources?
Scholarly articles for Turkey authoritarian dictatorship ..like David L. Phillips (23 May 2017). An Uncertain Ally: Turkey Under Erdogan's Dictatorship. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-62394-0.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLMoxy-  14:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The Republic of Turkey was viewed from the embassies of all countries page and there is the phrase "unitarian secular republic with presidential system". Global technologyy (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
What? Can't just disregard scholarly publications. Even tertiary sources use this place as an exmaple. Will let a few others make comments then add proper sources. Cant belive simply removed. Moxy-  15:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
You cannot determine the government of a country by quoting from books and authors. Approved from the United Nations page. Also what you want to do goes into politics. Our duty is to put politics aside and adopt the principle of impartiality. Global technologyy (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
You cannot determine the government of a country by quoting from books and authors ...best read up on the basics here Wikipedia:Verifiability. Moxy-  15:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Your deceptions are not nice. We need to deliver the right information to people from wikipedia. I don't think it's right that you hate a country and add "evil" misleading information to that country. Global technologyy (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Have asked for input from a few WikiProjects.Moxy-  15:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
That's enough time. please do not mix your articles with politics, objectivity will make wikipedia more readable. no need to argue. The state form was drawn up. spam is misleading there is no place for wikipedia inside Global technologyy (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah none of the sources mentions Turkey being dictatorship, instead talks about election results "moves towards authoritarianism" like quotes. Turkey is not a dictatorship, and has free elections. Beshogur (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
As per links above. Odd you wouild not look or read any
Moxy-  17:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I hope Moxy understands his mistake. Global technologyy (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Fell free to rebut any sources provided. Moxy-  17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh sources including "Stockholm Center" with links to Gülen movement, and placing German flag wrong on their website. None of those sources are credible. And we're not going to judge it by some cherry picked content, which takes some minutes to find. Also seeing that on dictatorship, Turkey is not even listed by countries like China, Belarus, KSA, etc. with no opposition. Are you really going to compare those to Turkey? Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow..No cherry picking...just listed the first few of thousands, Not sure how anyone can say David L. Phillips or Gerlich, Michael are not experts Not sure I would have point to a Wikipedia page for your argument. As said above have asked for imput form thoses familir with the topic. Moxy-  17:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Checking his Twitter, David L. Phillips does call Nagorno-Karabakh "Artsakh", how come that he has no bias or something? And was going to say, last source seems only credible one, however I can not read now, no time for it. Beshogur (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It is not a problem of more or less reliable sources. Into the country infobox should be written the official form of government of a country, period. Not the one that more or less informed or (mis-)aligned sources think it is. The only pertinent sources here are the constitution and the electoral law. Alex2006 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
whaT ? your saying list only offical forms of govermant as said by the goverment itsself over reliable sources? Odd just odd.Moxy-  18:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Only countries I could find having "dictatorship" on the infobox are North Korea, Belarus, Russia, Turkmenistan. How are these equal to Turkey? And even China isn't listed as dictatorship. Beshogur (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course Turkey is not (yet) a dictatorship: there is a coalition government, several opposition parties, the opposition rules in all the major cities, and next year there will be (hopefully) general elections. All these things are foreign to a dictatorship. Alex2006 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Best readup on the topic ...the guess work is simply wrong. Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2018). Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships? In How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse (pp. 129-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006 Moxy-  18:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The paper that you posted has nothing to do with Turkey. We are talking about elections in cities numbering millions inhabitants, hardly usable as "a signal" to show problems in the government. A couple of days before the Istanbul local elections, Erdogan told "Who rules Istanbul today, will rule Turkey tomorrow". Alex2006 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
it explans why some dictatorships have elections..like Russia etc. "Turkey's local elections were not free or fair". openDemocracy. 2019-06-11. Retrieved 2022-11-14. Moxy-  19:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Who is Thomas Phillips? Please. That persons seems to have one essay on that website, and it's not even clear who he is when I googled his name, definitely not a RS. Beshogur (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Dr Thomas Phillips Lecturer in Law, Liverpool John Moores University Moxy-  18:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
there is a coalition government to correct, it's not a coalition government, but coinfidence and supply. Erdogan's party is a minority though. Beshogur (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Into the country infobox should be written the official form of government of a country, period., that is not always true, e.g. Russia, where "under an authoritarian dictatorship" is also used. Is Turkey at a similar level of corruption and authoritarianism as practised by Putin? ValarianB (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Turkey and Russia are often portrayed as two authori­tarian regimes led by strong leaders. Bechev, Dimitar; Kınıklıoğlu, Suat. "Turkey and Russia: no birds of the same feather". SWP Comment. German Institute for International and Security Affairs. doi:10.18449/2020C24. Retrieved 2022-11-14. Moxy-  18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
If this is the case, also the infobox on the Russia article should be changed. To be clear, no one denies the authoritarian drifts in Turkey. But these in my opinion should be described in the article itself, in the infobox should go the official form of government. Alex2006 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, to an extent - but we don't go be the "official" description eg We don't describe N. Korea as a democracy. It has to be the headline deescription from RS per WP:DUE. There's clearly reliable sources calling Erdoğan's rule a "dictatorship" (and some of the comments attacking Moxy's sources as not credible are pretty bogus). However, this is where Infoboxes fall down - it's not the place for complexities. Those sources, if you read them, are using them to indicate something different from a literal dictatorship. Democratic institutions are still in place but Erdoğan has manupulated them to give his rule some or many of the attributes of a dictatorship. The word "dictatorship" has clearly been used to indicate how far Erdoğan has gone without really meaning a fully-fledged dictatorship per Pol Pot, Hitler etc Despite the sourcing, it's misleading and simplistic to use that wording in the Infobox.
However, the real issue is not the Infobox but that this issue is largely missing from the article itelf, and specifically the Government and Politics section where there is only some very oblique references. This is where the move towards dictatorship that has been clearly going on needs to be discussed and it's a lacuna in the article that, as far as I can see, it isn't to ny real extent. It's an WP:NPOV issue. In true Wikipedia fashion, we have 100s of kb discussion on an irrelevance like Turkey v Türkiye but this gets no attention until it affects an infobox. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. And I would like to add one thing: suppose we write "authoritarian dictatorship" in the infobox, elections take place next year and Erdogan is democratically defeated (last polls give him 30% of the votes) and leaves. What would this mean? What kind of authoritarian dictatorship would that be? Alex2006 (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The rather obvious answer would be "we would remove it", as it would be no longer applicable. If North Korea is overthrown tomorrow and an actual system of democracy was installed to run the country, then "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" would be changed accordingly. I don't think your question is as pertinent as you thought it would be, no offense. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, that makes no sense. If Erdoğan is "overthrown" by a democratic election then fairly obviously it was never a dictatorship it was a democracy. It's clearly different if the N. Korean regime is overthrown - that's called a revolution. DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
We write about what if's after the fact as per WP:CRYSTALBALL Moxy-  19:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It is Crystallball if we write "authoritarian dictatorship" now. As long as there will be strong opposition parties (BTW, Kılıçdaroğlu went to Washington for an unofficial endorsement a couple of weeks ago) and scheduled elections, you can forget about the "dictatoship". Alex2006 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
We follow what sources say, not hypotheticals WP:NOR Moxy-  20:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
You have just been shown that the sources you have brought do not say what you claim, so it would be wise to take note of it (what was the story about the dead donkey and the stick?). Alex2006 (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The competence level is a problem here. Moxy-  13:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Agree it needs to be in the body for sure ..need to start somwwher...just need to regurgitate the sources..but need others to read and knowledge the sources first. We need to explain in the body the democratic backslide and loss of real free elections and suppression of the press.Oder, Bertil Emrah (2021). "Turkey's Democratic Erosion: On Backsliding and the Constitution". Social Research: An International Quarterly. 88 (2). Project Muse: 473–500. doi:10.1353/sor.2021.0022. ISSN 1944-768X. Moxy-  20:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with DeCausa and Alex: this is inappropriate for the infobox. The authoritarian drift needs proper addressing in the body, but the infobox should be impeccably neutral and avoid contentious terms. Turkey is not at the Russia level, and it is clear that there isn't total consensus on this term being in the Russia infobox. In Turkey, a democratic change of government is possible, so it is not a dictatorship, despite the increasing authoritarianism and illiberalism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Agree start an RFC on the matter...just has not been posible to add anything of this nature in the body or lead. See below. Moxy-  15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Remove ethnic percentages in the info box. The country doesn't hold any ethnic surveys. The source material is of CIA which is an unreliable source as it is an information that the officials of the country do not hold a record of. Also, the agency is known for providing false information; even those that caused wars to erupt in the past. The Outsider (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, the OP has contested that a source used in the article is not reliable. And we don't establish the reliability of a source A by finding a reliable source B which says that A is reliable or not (although in some cases we do), but rather by editorial judgment and consensus. Therefore I believe we should explicitly address the points brought forward by the OP.
1) It doesn't matter if "the officials of the country do not hold a record of" the ethnic composition of the country. Ethnic diversity exists also in Turkey, even if the state ideology suppresses it. If reliable sources make reasonable estimates for demographics not captured in official censuses, WP will include this data.
2) Whether the CIA World Factbook is a reliable source for this kind of information, is a legitimate question (although the claim that this kind of open and fully disclosed information causes wars is a bit naive). I also would prefer to see a better source here, but not to the point of entirely removing the information, especially not in order to appease an anti-diversity ideology (that definitely caused wars to erupt in the past). –Austronesier (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the official name of the country in the lede (2)

Latest comment: 1 year ago123 comments44 people in discussion
Option 3 - as a ranked choice option 3 has the widest support, over option 2 which in turn had wider support than option 1. The arguments in favor of option 1 were largely irrelevant, with search result numbers being used to determine how common a supposed "official" name was, instead of looking at what the sources say is the official name. Article titles are based on commonality, but this isn't a move request so that argument was given less weight. But from the discussion it looks like option 3 was most acceptable to people supporting both Options 2 and 1, as well as having substantial support as a first option. nableezy - 07:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

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



Per discussion above, I am going to repeat this RfC, with a small change.

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

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

Beshogur (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur hi i think the second one is the most reasonable one to put in place of original sentence 2001:569:5019:6B00:91E2:87AB:14C7:A1F3 (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the second one is the proper one in the current state. UN, OECD and World Bank all international organizations already started to use this name. Very similar name change has happened with Czech Republic recently and Czechia is inluded immediatly. I cannot understand why it takes so long in this page. What is the difference exactly? Metuboy (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually Turkey was faster with most of things, Czechia was registered in UN in 2016, but with exception not to be used on name plates, exception which was dropped just recetly, after Türkiye registered. Türkiye was first on International Olympic Committee member list, first on NATO member list... But Türkiye is changing one short name with another. Czechia is filling what was missing. But anyway, IMHO Türkiye deserves recognition in the lede. Chrz (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)



Poll

  • Option 2, secondary option 3: Since various intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations, Organization of Turkic States and NATO starting to call it Türkiye. Shows clearly that this name is internationally accepted. And not to mention that Turkish constitution's English version starts to use Republic of Türkiye. Another precedent is Ivory Coast: Ivory Coast, also known as Côte d'Ivoire, officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire and Eswatini: Eswatini, officially the Kingdom of Eswatini and formerly named Swaziland. Also the UK, and the US governments do recognize this name change as well. And ISO: Full name the Republic of Türkiye as clear examples. Also would like to put UN note: The Republic of Türkiye changed its official name from The Republic of Turkey on 26 May 2022 in a request submitted to the Secretary-General by the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Beshogur (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Option 2: (UEFA too.) Similar case to Ivory Coast, as stated above. Or at least do asymetric "Option 2A" - Turkey, officially the Republic of Türkiye.Chrz (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Chrz (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Chrz: there's a third option now. Beshogur (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 What does "officially" mean in this context? Normally the legal and therefore "official" name of a country is defined under the laws and constitution of that country in the language of that country. How that is translated into foreign languages is not normally defined by the laws of that country. Hence all the Wikipedia country articles where the name of the country is not in English says "officially X" and then gives the local language name. That's not because it is "officially" called that in English - it's a shorthand for "officially [name in local language] which reliable sources translate as X in English". In the WP context it's the most effective way of communicating to english speakers the official name in the country's language. It never is a statement as to the "officiality" of the English translation. There is in fact an implicit de facto overlap with WP:COMMONNAME. There is only one official name for the Republic of Turkey and that's Türkiye Cumhuriyeti under the law and constitution of Turkey and nothing has changed that. reliable sources continue to translate that in English as "Republic of Turkey". No law has been enacted in Turkey determining an "official" name in English (the presidential memo isn't a law and he has no authority to enact one). The UN - despite the much touted "registration" isn't, in this context, some international registry of official state names in English. all that's happened there is that they've acceded to Erdoğan's request to have the name plate in the assembly and on the website changed. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Countries can change their official English name. Another example is Eswatini. People should check Talk:Eswatini/Archive 4. The UK government's Permanent Committee on Geographical Names shows an example how that occurs: Turkey; Republic of Turkey changed to Turkey; Republic of Türkiye Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    The Eswatini change was widely adopted by English media almost immediately. The same is not true with "Türkiye". --Spekkios (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's the reason why we aren't asking to change the title to Türkiye. But claiming Türkiye&Republic of Türkiye being an official name in English is incorrect. Beshogur (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Everything you say applies to Ivory Coast (and "Republic of Ivory Coast") too and behold, only one official-formal name in English is listed in the lede. Common names for formal names (which are generally less common than the short infotrmal ones) is a strange construction. Chrz (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    "Côte d'Ivoire" is quite widely used in the English language, although not to the same level as "Ivory Coast", which I assume is is why "Côte d'Ivoire" is stated as the official name. --Spekkios (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    is quite widely used, because the name change to Türkiye is quite new. As some organizations gradually starting to use, it will increase in English as well. See Eswatini example. Beshogur (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:CRYSTALBALL --Spekkios (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    "Ivory Coast, also known as Côte d'Ivoire, officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire". My point was that there is no "Republic of Ivory Coast" there in the lede, even though you can easily find very reliable sources which use it. Chrz (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    I understand your point. I said I assume the reason for that is because Côte d'Ivoire is quite widely used, unlike Türkiye. --Spekkios (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Who decided that the constitution is the only way to make something official? The Turkish passport has "Republic of Türkiye" on it. All three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) use Republic of Türkiye. The way "official" is determined: A piece of information is official, if it has been announced publicly with/by authority. Randam (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Idiotic comment. Türkiye, not Turkey is the official name. Turkey is a derogatory name and associating a culture of nation with a stupid bird used for meat is extremely dehumanizing and by definition has genocidal intents. Euglenos sandara (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    When English media outlets coontinue to use Turkey, Wikipedia is your last problem. Chrz (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    Simply asserting something will not make it true, @Euglenos sandara. Using incredibly inflammatory language ("extremely dehumanizing and by definition has genocidal intents") on top of an empty assertion, by the way, seems to hurt your case, not help it. Uness232 (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    I very highly appreciate your solid reasoning and debunking on my "inflammatory language" without pointing the fact that you can apply this term to anything you disagree with. I see this has become a trend for senior editors. No further debate here. Euglenos sandara (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    Since suggesting that 99% of the English-speaking community has 'genocidal intents' immediately renders you incapable of any coherent debate, I'm glad you quickly stepped away from your own argument without trying to defend it, which would have been impossible. Mazedriver (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Firstly, the "Turkey or Türkiye" start is redundant if the next statement is "Republic of Türkiye". Secondly, the clear English-language official name used for the country is "Republic of Turkey". Over the last year we have 272 Google news results for "Republic of Turkey" and 172 for "Republic of Türkiye". Similar English-language results for "Turkey" vs "Türkiye". At the very least, "Turkey" should not be changed to "Turkey or Türkiye" because the later appears so infrequently in English media that it's simply not the WP:COMMONNAME. --Spekkios (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Secondly, the clear English-language official name used for the country is "Republic of Turkey" What's the source for this if I can ask? Due to the name change being new, doesn't mean that obsolete "Republic of Turkey" usages is the current official name. Beshogur (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    I provided some links that show there were 100 more results for "Republic of Turkey" than "Republic of Türkiye". Your descrpition of the term as "obsolete" is clearly incorrect, as shown by the wide variety of sources that use "Republic of Turkey". That's hardly obsolete. --Spekkios (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Eg. EU has not changed yet but it is to be expected. Chrz (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:CRYSTALBALL --Spekkios (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe crystal ball, but Czechia is there, Eswatini is there, sooner or later it will happen. UNGEGN has not changed (for 3 years already :^O ) so UN is divided - UNGEGN Turkey and UNTERM Türkiye. Anyway some form of "also known as Türkiye" is to be added to the lede, it is a valid alternative name, less common but notably visible in sources already. Chrz (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    We have the article at Czech Republic. A hatnote can suffice for the alternative name. --Spekkios (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Not the point. Point was that EU style guide does not contain Türkiye yet, so it may seem as a proof against it. But it is expected to change because similar changes happened in the style guide recetly. You call it crystallball, I call it trend. Chrz (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Trends are irrelevant. We use what is reality now, not what might be in the future. --Spekkios (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Invalid point, WP:COMMONNAME is about article title. This RfC is about the lede. Randam (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    You cited common name in your !vote, so I assume that's invalid too. --Spekkios (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, that why I, after reconsideration, striked through the part that is based on WP:COMMONNAME. Are you going to do the same?--Randam (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    I see that, in the same edit you made this comment. My point still stands, as even though WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, "Türkiye" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and therefore should not be the very first name in the article, which was my original point. --Spekkios (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    How are we going to reach a consensus if you keep refering to Wikipedia policy that's not designed to be used in other areas? What is applicable here is WP:LEAD and more specifically MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. The latter states that alternative names should be included, just like on the pages of Kyiv and Czech Republic. Randam (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    If you want to be specific, what you want is MOS:ALTNAME, which clearly states that title can be followed in the first sentence by one or two alternative names in parentheses. The title in this case is "Turkey", which, as I stated, is the WP:COMMONNAME. Option 1 includes the Turkish words in parentheses, which is why it's the best option. --Spekkios (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Turkey is probably going to remain the commonly used name in English, but the article should reflect the status of both names. Agree with the point by DeCausa that Turkey's request is solely a request, but if anything, that makes giving both quasi-official status in the first line of the article valid. JackWilfred (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 it is what is used outside USA now....... shouldn't be held back by a less progressive countries view. Been a few months for other countries. Odd USA won't follow the president's request.Moxy-  23:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The following comment made by me has been moved - and changed - twice by editors Moxy and Beshogur. I have to remind those two experienced editors about the concerns regarding refactoring of other editors entries. First it was moved to a separate section "Other proposals", and the word 'Comment' was removed. I can understand the idea, but it was not my intention to present it as my proposal, it was meant as a comment on the fact that the RfC was connecting two changes that not necessarily need to go together (as others also have commented). Maybe that was not very clear, but in my opinion the comment belonged where it was. Then it was moved back to (almost) it's original place, but this time adding it as a !vote for the newly added option 3. I have not cast a !vote yet, I have only been commenting and asking. I have now moved the original comment back to its original place. Please do not move it or change it. Thank you! --T*U (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In my mind, the formula or Türkiye (Turkish: Türkiye is a glorious example of redundancy. --T*U (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, but reluctantly (see below) Option 3 (as it has been added as an option): I don't see any argument, aside from the contrarian wishes of certain Wikipedians frustrated with a rather awkward name change, for keeping Option 1. It is quite simply misleading to call the official name of Turkey 'Republic of Turkey', while an increasing amount of institutions are switching to Turkey's new name. For those saying that Turkey's official name is not clear; I suggest taking the 'officially' part out of the sentence entirely, since if this is the case, writing any definitive official name would be misleading, and should be relegated to a hat-note. Therefore, Option 1 simply is not accurate, and can not stay. As for option 2, it is better, but has a separate problem; the repeat of the official name twice is very unwieldy prose. I would suggest the third possibility, first suggested by TU- nor, as an alternative: Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Türkiye. However, I find it unlikely that this late in the RM, it will succeed to overcome option 2. Either way, Option 1 is unacceptable, in my opinion. Uness232 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
By official name, it should be understood as translation of Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. Therefore the word "officially" can not fall. Some countries like Hungary and Ukraine are republics as well, however their official name do not contain the "republic of". Otherwise we should remove every country's "official" name from the lede. Beshogur (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think on that point I did not explain myself well. I was not thinking about simply getting rid of the word officially; rather, I suggested to get rid of the section “officially the Republic of Turkey/Türkiye” entirely, or at least relegate it to a hatnote. This was not my final suggestion either, however; merely a response for those who think that the official name is disputed. My point was that *if* the official name is disputed, why are we keeping it there, and presenting one option rather than another (as with Option 1)? Uness232 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Please put the reasons. Beshogur (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2: per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. It states that common alternative names should be included. The lead needs to reflect the fact that the country is nowadays called in two ways on commons basis: Turkey and Türkiye. Both names are WP:COMMONNAME.
For example, Türkiye is used by intenational organizations (UN, NATO, World Bank), by big companies (AkzoNobel, Fitch credit ratings, Moody's), in sports (FIFA, FIVB), in various non-Turkish news sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), [10]). It would also be consistent with other leads that have similar issue such as Kyiv and Czech Republic.--Randam (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, as it has only been a few months since the closure of the last RfC on this topic and no new info has been presented. Those voting for a change here should explain what is new or different since May to now, lest their votes be discounted. Users who lose a debate don't get to simply keep hammering and bludgeoning the process til they get their preferred outcome. ValarianB (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    You didn't say why you chose option 1 as well. no new info has been presented is simply untrue. Don't turn a blind eye to all those presented links. Beshogur (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Peruse WP:BLUDGEON at your convenience. Your repetitive participation in this discussion is a net negative. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Option 1, per WP:WEIGHT/WP:V. Reviewing the recent sourcing supplied above, I have to agree it hasn't been established that the variation with diacritics has been set as the "official" option for purposes of English usage, as established in WP:RS. Both versions are historically prevalent, in both official contexts and in a more general sense (and nothing has changed in the short term as concerns that fact), but 'Turkey' is clearly still the more dominant usage, up to and including today. There's some implication made above that the trend is towards the shift and the Turkic-mirroring version is likely to overtake the traditional form in the country's official documentation and in RS generally, and we ought to get out ahead of the change. While that argument might very well seem to have an intuitive rationality to it, policy for such circumstances expressly tells us this is an insufficient argument, and there are a lot of reasons why community consensus is what it is in that respect. I'm also going to add my voice to noting that this is a fairly rapid (possibly verging on disruptive) turn-around on a content issue that was clearly settled pretty conclusively by RfC not very long ago, that the format of the RfC seems to have been suboptimal at the outset (and will confuse consensus going forward), and there's emerging issues with bludgeoning. SnowRise let's rap 19:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'm missing here, perhaps it is an issue of relative experience. However, I have not seen an argument that in any way defends the usage of O1. Isn't it, by definition, incredibly misleading to consider "Republic of Turkey" the only official name at this point? I understand that there are sources that use Turkey still, but isn't the decision to change the name even by some organizations sufficient to suggest that the move to the new name has official standing in one way or another? Again, not an argument on the basis of commonality to change the article's name; that is a separate discussion which would likely not resolve in the favor of the new name for a long time; I am, however, quite confused and slightly distressed that "Republic of Turkey" is still to be considered the official name; despite the government's actions otherwise and a steady stream of organizations adopting the new name. Uness232 (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Uness232, I moved my responses to your questions to a subsection below, as I don't know how to address your inquiries without a bit of voluminous discussion, but a seven paragraph response in the middle of the polling section would be a distracting eyesore. SnowRise let's rap 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough, convincing and beautifully worded response. I will need some time to rethink my stance, but I do understand the argument for Option 1 a lot better now.
Thanks again, Uness232 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The government of Turkey does not get to dictate the spelling that the English-speaking world chooses to use. Until this spelling change catches on in a majority of reliable, English-language sources, Wikipedia policy is firmly behind maintaining the current spelling for this country. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
UK government disagrees it seems like. Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The UK government also does not get to dictate English-language spellings. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
So what makes you think Ü can not be "English-language spelling". So Côte D'Ivoire isn't English either? Why is it used in English? Beshogur (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 would be my first choice, with Option 3 being my secondary choice. "Turkey" has been the commonly used English exonym for the nation in question (many non-English speaking countries have a name that leans towards "Türkiye", but that is less relevant when considering the English language article). However, the official government of that nation has formally requested for the nation to be known as Türkiye in English, a move that has been formalized with the United Nations. Therefore, including both the (present) commonly used English name for the country, as well as the official English name for the country, seems fair. This is even more evident when considering the official name for the country: as it stands now, the article mentions "Republic of Turkey" being the official name, which is objectively false. It would be one thing to say that it is just a direct English translation of the Turkish official name. But now that there is an "official" English version of the name ("Republic of Türkiye"), I believe it is best to use that. Ultimately, I feel that Option 2 is the best compromise in appealing to both the current commonly used English name for the country, as well as the official English name for the country. In regards to those saying that including both "Turkey" and "Türkiye" would be redundant, there is precedent for such an inclusion - look at the page for the capital city of Ukraine as an example. Ultimately, I feel that including the new official English name should be straightforward, and am unsure of why there is so much controversy when there is precedent for such a move. I keep seeing arguments that relate to certain politicians, which I don't believe is relevant at all here. I have Option 3 as a secondary choice for similar reasons to my backing of Option 2, but ultimately Option 2 is where my vote goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8D80:28C0:2C63:F568:FC6B:4084 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – A google news search for Republic of "Turkey" turns up "3,680,000 results". A google news search for Republic of "Türkiye" turns up "196,000 results". Therefore, Republic of Türkiye is not a significant alternative name for the country and should not be included. "Republic of Türkiye" is rather a half English–half Turkish spelling of the country's official Turkish name, which is already provided in parentheses in the article (i.e. Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti). --Guest2625 (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Not particularly relevant, except as an argument against O2. O3 can still be implemented without adhering to WP:COMMONNAME, as it is not an RM but a change of an official name. Uness232 (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Reasoning for non-inclusion of "Republic of Türkiye" or "Türkiye" is based on the guideline MOS:ALTNAME (i.e. non-frequency of use) and also the desire to avoid MOS:LEADCLUTTER (i.e. "Türkiye" is already provided in parentheses as Turkish spelling). --Guest2625 (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Don't you see that we're talking about an official name change. "Republic of Turkey" is not official anymore. Beshogur (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 3 per Randam and Firefangledfeathers. In addition to UN, international organizations like World Bank, and international media quoted above, some of the recent official communications of English-speaking countries seem to have shifted too. For example: United Kingdom, Canada I think the RFC should have first asked if Türkiye should be used in first sentence, before clarifying how, which would be a separate RFC or discussion. Also, looking at the RfC's above, I think this time we should have admin closure for this RfC. Bogazicili (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Makes it clear Turkiye is official while still using the common colloquial name. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3As in other articles as well. Interesting we need an RfC for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is clearly unacceptable because it implies that Türkiye is used to some significant degree in English, a claim for which we have no evidence. Options 1 and 3 both rather suffer from lead clutter. I would start the article simply with: Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije])... and would move the official name down to the Name section. Failing that, I see no reason to change from the pre-existing consensus, which here is Option 1. Kahastok talk 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Kahastok: How so? The rfc was closed on may 23, and Turkey submitted on may 26. Perhaps see my vote for evidence. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    Fair point (assuming it refers to the question of option 1 vs. option 3). But I would maintain that this is all best discussed where we have space in the Name section, where we have more space. Both options 1 and 3 are too much clutter in the lead, and removing this down would also help resolve the problem with option 3 that it repeats the word Türkiye several times in various combinations, with little obvious benefit to the reader. Kahastok talk 16:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    This means that "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti is not the official name of Turkey, which is. Compare for Hungary, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine, that are republics (at least on paper), but doesn't have "Republic of ..." name, while a lot of countries have. Beshogur (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, do list all the cases when it does not matter, but somehow for Turkey it is too much clutter in the lede and too much repeating. IOW excuses. Chrz (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    Lead clutter is important everywhere. But this is the article where the question is being asked. If other broken stuff exists, then fix the other broken stuff, don't make it worse by breaking this article as well. Kahastok talk 20:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Chrz, WP:AGF please. I also disagree with the lead clutter argument, but please assume that people think otherwise sincerely when replying to someone on Wikipedia. Uness232 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    Wikipedia already had a way how to solve these cases. Turkey became the case this year.
    First solution is to deal with Turkey the same way as the rest is solved.
    Second solution is to create some kind of one-off just for Trukey without any reason. Just because.
    Third option is create a new way for Turkey and also change the rest from the same group. If it really is considered "broken" now.
    Most straightforward is the first way. Chrz (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    Not saying you're wrong (if you look at my opinions above, it's fairly clear that I agree with you), but you could have just said that without making the argument claiming that the other side is operating in bad faith. Uness232 (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    Not bad faith, but bad attitude. Suddenly the rest is considered broken, just like that, and it will be solved only with the most recent case. Not a systematic approach. You can always say that you don't have to follow examples because those are broken and we are dealing only with single article. Chrz (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    Well, all I'm saying is that you should not assume that other Wikipedians have ulterior motives without strong evidence for it, as the word 'excuses' had implied to me. If you had meant it in a different sense, I apologize for misunderstanding you. Uness232 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, second choice option 1. Still common name despite the governmental request. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    You mean Option 3, then Option 1, or am I misunderstanding your argument? Uness232 (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Badly formed RFC. The title is "RfC on the official name of the country in the lede (2)". It presents two options that muddy the ability to focus on the question that this RFC is supposed to be about with by rolling another question into it, the question about the part of the sentence that precedes the part about the official name. Conflating two different questions right out of the starting gate is no way to solicit people's opinions on one of them. We have a hard enough time getting people to focus on WP:COMMONNAME while they harp on what name is official and don't understand that that isn't the criterion for titling an article. Now we have the reverse situation, where the question is about the official name, which, compared to questions about common names, is normally less fuzzy by an order of magnitude than the question of common name because, well, things that are official are official. But here the two options have thrown a monkey wrench ("adjustable spanner?") into the discussion by ensnaring the "name known by" matter into it. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. The two additions should be considered separately. --Spekkios (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this RfC has had a rather bad start. The problem of linking two different questions together has now been remedied by the addition of the third possible option I and others have mentioned, but that is now actually making things worse, since there is nothing to explain new editors coming here that this option was not there from the beginning. It also leaves some of the comments made before the addition hanging in the air. Some of the !votes are now cast for option 2 with comments clearly saying they would have !voted for option 3 if it had been there. For myself, who has not even cast a !vote yet, I have had my so far only entry moved and changed twice by two different editors (see comment in small script in the Poll section). I think the best solution would be to close this RfC now and open a new one with all three options being there from the start. --T*U (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to Uness232, re: questions about !votes supporting Option 1

[Uness232, I initially placed this immediately following your inquiries above, but it was simply too much a wall of text for me to feel comfortable leaving it in the !vote section, while at the same time I felt it was all (unfortunately) necessary to answer your questions regarding what is undoubtedly a complex matter both factually and under policy.]

Well, I want to preface any response here by noting that I think this situation presents a complex call under existing policy, to an extent that I don't think there is an ideal solution here: at a minimum I certainly understand why responses are all over the place. That said, let me respond to your inquiries in a slightly different order.
To start with, I just don't feel comfortable with an approach that says "This intragovernmental agency or that international organization, or X polity says 'Turkey/Türkiye'. To my eye, that can only be fairly described as WP:Original research, no matter what combination of factors or opinions a given editor or group of editors decides is the appropriate threshold; it's just not how we are meant to be making content decisions on this project (making deductions based on our interpretations of the veracity/authority stances of WP:primary sources and involved parties. The best we can do in this difficult circumstance is continue to take the lead of secondary reliable sources without inserting any of our own idiosyncratic interpretation as individuals with opinions about the "correctness" of one call or the other. In those terms, I just don't see that enough sourcing yet exists to indicate that the actual name (whether we are talking about the WP:COMMONNAME or what is being colloquially called "the official name" in this discussion) has shifted to Türkiye. I'd give decent odds that it's headed in that direction, but that brings us back to WP:CRYSTAL. So for now, I don't see enough sourcing being proffered to meet WP:ONUS for the purpose of a change on the basis of WP:WEIGHT; in fact, the sourcing seems to still strongly cut in the other direction for now.
It's also worth noting that the distinction of the common name vs. the "official name" doesn't particularly hinge on the spelling/transliteration issues (or at least, this is a secondary factor at best): the common name in English is still "Turkey/Türkiye", with "Turkey" being the by far dominant spelling in our corpus of reliable sources, but "Türkiye" an existing major variant with a significant upward trend since the Turkish central government's recent effort to promote that transcription in certain contexts. The "official" name is "The Republic of Turkey/Türkiye", as either variant is a reasonable translation of the country's name from Turkic into English. One merely has a shallower orthography with regard to the transliteration. But the distinction between the common and official names is more about whether the entirety of the name of the polity (in addition to the toponymy) is utilized, and not which spelling predominates.
And it's easy to see this as an issue with respecting the self-determination of a state with regard to its identity--I assume that is what underpins the 'distress' you speak of. But that's just not how language works with regard to choronyms (or endonyms/exonyms broadly): Japan isn't "Japan" to the Japanese, it's "Nippon"; Georgia isn't "Georgia" to the Georgenese, it's "Sakartvelo". Germany, India, China, Russia: the list goes on. Nor do states have to contend with variants in just one language, but typically across many. Sometimes the names are minimally variant because the languages utilize different phonemics for certain sounds and the orthography that represent those sounds, and sometimes they are radically different for historical and idiosyncratic reasons, but the fact of the matter is that a political institution deciding it would prefer one variant over another is just simply not always a guarantee that said preference will pass into common usage (and thus for our purposes, the majority of reliable sources) for a given language. And that disconnect typically isn't really about being disrespectful of a nation's self-determination, so much as it is about a whole raft of complexities that arise out of human natural language: factors too complex for us to easily summarize here.
Most national cultures are pretty understanding of this to greater or lesser extents and it is rare for a government to try to insist that the speakers of another language conform to their spelling conventions and written script conventions, including diacritics that the speakers of those languages may not be familiar with or be easily able to replicate. And indeed, for our purposes here on Wikipedia, technically speaking we do not typically permit non-English orthography in the main body of articles, restricting them to the phonetic parantheticals at the beginning of the article and to prose that actually discusses the script expressly. Clearly this is a unique case, because Turkey/Türkiye's central government is, at least in some contexts, making a significant show of signposting this, which puts us in a position of not being able to ignore the issue altogether, I think it is fair to say.
However, it is worth noting that not all of Turkey/Türkiye is uniformly behind this move: this change did not arise out of national referendum or even a legislative initiative: this change is very much a bugbear of Turkey's President Recep Erdoğan, and it's been observed both inside and outside of the nation that this move seems to be a kind of populist/nationalist move to try to shore up support for the next election cycle, where he and the AKP face a significant uphill battle owing to a decline in popularity. That's neither here not there for our content determination here, except for the fact that it is necessary info for explaining why we are in this complicated predicament to begin with, and why we don't face the same issues with regard to other nations with wide divergences between their endonyms and various exonyms in other languages, English included.
All of that said, I actually think there are permutations here that might allow us to inclusively discuss these complexities in the lead sentence. But among the three proposed options, two of them suggest supplanting the variation that seems to be regarded (still) as the "official" name of the country with one that is not as robustly supported in the sources, and per the WP:OR considerations discussed above, I have to default to option 1 as the best of the three variants under policy and these complex facts. But I definitely don't consider it a perfect solution so much as the best of the limited options presented. I'd say it's the best option to try to thread the needle, but it's probably better to say thread several needles that aren't even lined up... So I for one won't exactly be vociferously opposing any outcome here, because if ever there were a policy determination where reasonable minds might diverge... SnowRise let's rap 06:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if there would be any appetite for "Turkey, also known as Türkiye, or Turkiye (Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Turkey or the Republic of Türkiye."? It's pretty dang clunky, I have to say, but does have the virtue of perhaps being the most precise/express description of the issues. Like I said, no option feels altogether satisfying here, if you ask me. SnowRise let's rap 08:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
"Turkey, also known as Türkiye, or Turkiye"
and "(Turkish: Türkiye [ˈtyɾcije]), officially the Republic of Turkey or the Republic of Türkiye (Turkish: ............. [........])." as explanatory footnote. Chrz (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I would say no, because it's so long. --Spekkios (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Or Vietnam precedent, see Vietnam, I think it mirrors Turkey situation perfectly. Chrz (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This article must be clearing up some stuff. It is indeed "official". As some users said "official law is required", it must be remembered that Turkey is a presidential republic, and doesn't require parliament to pass some stuff. Here you see how he passed it with only a decree. Beshogur (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Cmon SnowRise, you can't tell me that the name 'Turkey' was merely a phonetic coincidence. We know someone was having a chuckle when the identical spelling to the bird Turkey was selected which is slang for "an inept, stupid, or unpleasant person". Additionally, the need to add an e before y was not deemed necessary when developing spelling for other countries (Germany, Italy, Hungary). Phonetically, if you can say Zimbabwe you can say Turkiye. In this day and age, i would think people were more enlightened. Matt Lakefront (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You can't just make up what you think the history of a word is and expect it to be taken as a valid argument. The bird was named for the country: those birds were called turkey fowl, turkey hens after country, based on a misunderstanding that they were from there, comparable to guinea fowl, guinea hens being attributed to Guinea. And Turks, believe it or not, call Turkeys "hindi", yes, as in "Hindi", based on a different attribution of the birds to India. (Even French still has "dinde", from "de Inde" = "from India"). Meanwhile the Oxford English Dictionary traces insulting meanings of "turkey" back only as far as 1927, centuries after the English name for both the country and the bird had been established. Largoplazo (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Usage in Australia

Until now I've only ever heard the country referred to in English as Turkey, but today on Landline on the national broadcaster it was given in print as Türkiye, with a verbal aside along the lines "which is the new name of the country". —DIV (49.186.57.131 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

The ABC appears to have adopted Türkiye for its online news coverage, per [11] [12] [13] [14], as does the Australian Federal Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: [15] [16] [17]. DavidArnold (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Other proposals

  • For the option 2, another possibility could be Turkey (Türkiye) .. as CIA World Factbook uses. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Another solution would be to simplify it completely: Turkeya is a transcontinental country, where all the various name forms are described in the a-note (and in the section 'Name'). If the article later is moved to Türkiye or Turkiye or whatever through a WP:RM because the common name has changed, the bolded word would change accordingly. --T*U (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Is this for the first part or do you suggest the same thing for "Republic of Turkey" as well? Beshogur (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I meant to include all versions of the official name in the same note, so that only the short WP:COMMONNAME (currently 'Turkey') is explicitly mentioned in the first sentence. And just to avoid you misunderstanding me again: This is not my preferred(inserted for clarity) suggestion. I am just tossing ideas with the hope of making some people a bit more open for other possible ways of doing things instead of just digging the trenches deeper. Myself, I have not cast a !vote yet, perhaps never will. We'll see. --T*U (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Suggestion means "idea". Beshogur (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I have became a bit wary after you refactored another idea/suggestion of mine into a !vote. --T*U (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Option 3: As it is shown today: "Turkey" AND in a section called "English name dispute" enter: "Erdogan's regime tries to impose "Türkiye" as the English name, although himself unable to speak English" Ostirnim (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    "Erdogan's regime tries to impose "Türkiye" as the English name, although himself unable to speak English" and? This is not even relevant to the discussion. Beshogur (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, this is relevant: it underscores the absurdity of page-long discussions for almost a year without any objective reason: a single man who doesn't even speak English pretends to define and impose an "English name" to the rest of the world. As an important political (though not linguistic) figure in his (non-English speaking) country, he deserves a certain amount of attention (e.g. proposed section "English name dispute"), but no more. Otherwise, anyone can come up with similar whims for the name of any country in other languages, and Wikipedia's energy would be wasted on just that: whims and personal desires. Ostirnim (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    However unfortunately; Erdogan is not 'anyone' by any stretch of the imagination. Whether or not he speaks English might influence people's individual decisions about the name change, but it should have no effect on Wikipedia. Regardless of the results of this discussion, Erdogan, as the head of state, has all the rights to start imposing a new English official name for his country (emphasis on the official, not common, which would mean a article title change, which is not argued here). What is now being argued is, whether what he did qualifies as an official English name change. Uness232 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey/Archive_36&oldid=1241434809"