Talk:Turkey

The article is too long

It's currently 13,585 words or 87kb.[1] Will aim for under 9k words per Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3. That means multiple sections will need to be trimmed. Although some areas need expansion. For example, coverage of earthquakes, faultlines etc are ridiculously short. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

• Trimmed lengthy part about branches of government.[2] This is already in Government of Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  After 13.5k, the article is finally 11,518 words. Bogazicili (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is still 11,402 words. I'll rewrite and shorten the Foreign relations section, which is one of the longest sections now. Other parts of the article will be trimmed too, although I might add a few things as well. I don't think the article can get below 9k words, but below 10k will be my goal. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want an easy word removal, remove the Science and technology subsection. It's a level 4 section in Economy of Turkey, totally out of relative proportion here. CMD (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still going over the article. There are lots of places to remove and trim before Science and technology subsection. Some parts still have very poor sourcing.

For example, one paragraph in climate is redundant. LGBTQ rights needs to be trimmed and merged into Human rights section.

The child articles are also very low quality. So we can't asses DUE with respect to other Wikipedia sources.

I have been sidetracked with other Wiki articles

By the way, we are at 10,746 words now. Much better compared to 13,585 words Bogazicili (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

10,641 words at the moment. There are lots of places to tighten and get below 10k. I'll be doing that over the next several weeks. Also note that there's an actually an article: Science and technology in Turkey.

I won't be aiming for under 9k though. I think under 10k is ok, even for Featured Articles. Bogazicili (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Where's the Emblem of Turkey?! 202.138.239.24 (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Türkiye changed english name

English user must use TÜRKİYE instead of old one. good morning for wikipedia. it has been changed long time ago and all government bodies use the new english name. 78.148.128.115 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Your use of the word "must" is misguided. See the many discussions about this that have already taken place on this page, summarized at the top (on a phone, you may have to click a link to "learn more about this page"). Largoplazo (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You have to say someone name is correct. If my name is John, you must say it John not Jonathan. It is for being respectful opposite side when their name is said by others. I think it’s crystal clear largeplasa. ;) 78.148.128.115 (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand what "must" means. No one is forcing us to change what we call it. There are no penalties. Largoplazo (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Don’t be obsessed and stuck one word. No-one gives you a penalty.

must means must. wikipedia must provide correct and updated information to its users or shut it down if it cannot do that. It means that wiki misleads people with incorrect info. Therefore, it makes wiki untrustworthy and info junk. I know there are so many wrong information wiki published.

Every thing has own capacity. I cannot blame wiki with its low capacity. 92.17.223.153 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Shall we start a new moratorium on similar discussions again? This talk page has several similar queries leading to the same. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It would certainly make life easier for a while. In the October 2024 "snow" closure, BarrelProof "requested" a moratorium till this month, but no one pursued it. During the last full discussion a year ago, there was a lot of support for a moratorium, some (including me) requesting that it be for two years, and no one opposed it, but it wasn't mentioned in the closing statement. But I'd argue that there was certainly a consensus for it. Unless there's substantial disagreement, I'd say a moratorium is already in effect, set to expire a year from now. Largoplazo (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Whole countries use Türkiye now. If it's the diacritics then just keep it as U. But keeping it as Turkey is purely disrespectful. Arjunullas (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It's the reasons that were given up and down the discussion, not the one you made up. What's more concretely disrespectful is wasting others' time by making them repeat themselves over and over. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We go by the usage that predominates in reliable sources in English. If you consider it disrespectful, go yell at them. Largoplazo (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Therefore, wikipedia is unreliable source of information and spreading wrong knowledge because of its admins’ ideology. Old people always live in past time and never renew themselves with new world. They can’t adapt to new things very easily. Old is old and do not touch it. Leave that as it is. 92.17.223.153 (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is reliable in its reflection of actual English usage in the outside world. If you don't like actual English usage in the outside world, please direct your grievance to the outside world. When the outside world changes its usage, Wikipedia will reliably reflect that—just as it did for Timor-Leste and Eswatini. Largoplazo (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

the fact that they changed their name has no relevance.

for example, Czech Republic officially set their informal name as Czechia, yet Czech Republic is still more common in english sources, therefore the page remains as Czech Republic.

other examples of wikipedia article titles not matching the official name are: Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea.

Wojtekpolska1013 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't help that users who lean towards keeping the English name have comments continually deleted by Pro-TÜRKİYE users on this talk page. There is a large amount of nationalism within Turkey and many Turkish users will vandalize conversations regarding the proper usage and language on the English Wikipedia. On the Turkish Wikipedia they have always used the Türkiye because that is the direct English translation. We don't use the Spanish term for the United States on the English Wikipedia but we do use it on the Spanish one. Same principle. The Impartial Truth (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a silly read if you care to understand how the {{Infobox country}} is laid out and what each parameter is for—i.e. that one is for the name of the country being officially used in English, which Türkiye is. Remsense ‥ 论 05:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense: What do you mean by "officially used in English"? As English is not a prescribed language then I don't know what that phrase means.

{{infobox country}} has three pertinent parameters:

• conventional_long_name for the formal or official full name of the country in English
• native_name for the country's name in its language
• common_name for its common name in English

It's the last of those being discussed here and reliable sources suggest that most English speakers commonly refer to the country as "Turkey", as has been the case for many years. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the first one—that's the only place where Türkiye is used in the article, after all. Remsense ‥ 论 09:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsensev Thanks for explaining. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the deletions you're referring to? I just scanned through the last 200 edits/two months of edits, glancing at all that showed a net negative change in the size of this talk page, and none of them appear to match your description. Largoplazo (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Using Czechia as an example for this is stupid. Czechia is the official short name, Czech Republic is just as official. Not to mention there has been talks about changing wikipedia's title on Czech Republic to Czechia and Czechia is used by most younger people. On the other hand, Türkiye has changed its English name officially and no longer uses Turkey. Keeping the title as Turkey is misleading and disrespectful. 193.179.119.233 (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you expect from the English-language Wikipedia when it takes forever to change article names? Just like the article about the German National Democratic Party (NPD), which changed its name in the summer of 2023 but still appears on the English Wikipedia under its original name because people just can't bring themselves to rename the article. Cenbutz1 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The entire record of the reasons given for not having changed it is right smack in front of you, so it's pointless for you to make up something foolish like not being able to" bring themselves to" do it. Most of us aren't ten years old or Marty McFly, so taunting us isn't going to be an effective form of persuasion here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I get that article title changes—especially for high-profile topics—need to follow process. But at some point, sticking with the old name feels less like a matter of policy and more like simple inertia. If reliable sources and international institutions have already adopted the new name, shouldn’t we be open to reconsidering the current title?

This isn’t about taunting anyone or rushing a decision—it’s about keeping [[Wikipedia:Article titles|article titles]] aligned with current, verifiable usage. Per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], we should use the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources today, not just historically. And if the new name is clearly notable and backed by sources, it meets the threshold for a change under [[WP:TITLECHANGES]].

We’re not “locked in the past”—we can make thoughtful, consensus-based updates using the very tools Wikipedia provides. If the move is accurate and well-supported, then continuing to use the outdated title becomes harder to justify. Vinizex94 (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not being used in the English-speaking world to any great extent. You only have to look at major media outlets such as the BBC[3], New York Times[4], Reuters[5], CNN[6], Financial Times[7], Wall Street Journal[8], The Guardian[9], NBC[10], etc to see the reality that there's no movement away from "Turkey". Those are all from the last feww weeks. Most English-speakers still wouldn't even know what Türkiye is. It's governments, international organisations and the like that are using it - because they comply with the Turkish governments request. Regular English-language WP:RS use what English-speakers universally use, which continues to be "Turkey". It's so they can be understood. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

But at some point, sticking with the old name feels less like a matter of policy and more like simple inertia. If reliable sources and international institutions have already adopted the new name, shouldn’t we be open to reconsidering the current title? The point of guidelines is to have them to guide us in situations where consistent guidance is needed. If you think the guidelines should be changed to follow that rationale, the place to discuss that is at the talk page for the guidelines.

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources today, not just historically. Participants in past discussions were aware of that and took that into account. Largoplazo (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There have been a lot of arguing about this topic so far. But no one was able to make an actual point. I think we should put this to an open vote for all editors and see the results. Arguing is enough. One side says we SHOULD change the name, the other side says we SHOULDN'T. Vinizex94 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by no one was able to make an actual point. Taken literally, it's manifestly untrue: people have made many points. As for "open vote", assuming you mean just count up votes, Wikipedia doesn't do that, it operates by having open discussions to see if a WP:Consensus results from people in good faith applying the appropriate guidelines. And there have been seven formal move discussions on this subject in the last seven years where no consensus to move the article was reached. You can find these near the top of this page (on a mobile device you might have to click something to get "more information about this page"). Largoplazo (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We don't actually vote here. We compare arguments and see which one matches best with the facts in evidence and Wikipedia policy. One person making an argument that aligns with facts and policy would prevail over 7 billion whose arguments do not match facts and policy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the depth and frequency of this discussion, I want to propose a constructive middle ground: including “Türkiye (Turkey)” in the lead sentence or appropriate context—not as a rename, but as a clarifying usage. This would serve an educational purpose, especially for readers who may not know the country officially changed its English designation to “Türkiye” in 2022.

Per WP:COMMONNAME, I understand and respect that “Turkey” remains the prevailing term in English-language reliable sources. That said, Wikipedia is also a reference tool for readers who may not be familiar with ongoing geopolitical or cultural changes. Using both terms—e.g., “Türkiye (Turkey)”—helps bridge that gap without challenging the current title or violating naming policy.

This isn’t about nationalism or forcing a change; it’s about improving clarity and supporting informed readership. Similar compromises exist in other articles (e.g., Czechia/Czech Republic, Myanmar/Burma). It may also help preempt confusion and reduce repeated talk page disputes.

Would there be support for a limited, informative use of “Türkiye (Turkey)” early in the article, consistent with existing editorial practices and in the spirit of balanced presentation? Vinizex94 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It's already the 6th word in the article. It would seem that you are arguing for us to dp what we are already doing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We need to re propose this article be moved to Turkiye. It's their Turkish name, English name, it's used everywhere. So the change should affect Wikipedia too. Adding "Officially the republic of Turkiye" in the introductory part is not enough. I propose not only that this article be moved, but also have every instance of Turkey replaced with Turkiye. Heyitsmekalhan (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody needs to or should repropose it now because a proposal to do so, below, just ended with a finding that the criteria for moving it still haven't been met. In particular, it isn't used "everywhere". Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I second the proposal. Moreover, I find Largoplazo's notion that no sources exist with the updated name utterly preposterous. The old name is seeing less and less usage everyday (at least in American English). Kehkou (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Neither do I possess nor have I expresssed such a preposterous notion. "It isn't used 'everywhere'" is not the same thing as "It isn't used anywhere". Largoplazo (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The country changed its English name to reflect its Turkish name and also to specifically avoid the confusion with the bird. Continuing to call it by an outdated name that had two different reasons to change and is no longer used in many contexts shows that this article is falling behind. It's really just a name, we shouldn't even be debating this. We can put "alternatively called turkey" in the introductory paragraph, but having the article called "turkey" and the country repeatedly called "turkey" inside the article is too much. It's been called türkiye for years now, and I see no reason to change Heyitsmekalhan (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It's really just a name, yet you're debating it. That you describe sticking with the current title as "too much" suggests you even feel strongly about it, which is ironic from someone chiding others with "it's really just a name".

The "confusion" reason is a counterfeit reason. Never in the history of the country, the bird, or the English language has anyone saying "We're having turkey for dinner tonight" or "I'm visiting Turkey this fall" been asked in response "Do you mean the country or the bird?" Nobody is ever confused. Further, if English speakers had started calling the country Türkiye 500 years ago, then we'd have started calling the bird a "türkiye" all the way back then, since the bird's name in English does come from the country's name. Would Erdoğan, in that case, be begging us to avoid confusion by calling the country "Turkey"? In addition, does Egypt complain that the Turkish word for corn, "mısır" is the same as its name for Egypt? Do Egyptians get bent out of shape by all the street food carts in Istanbul bearing signs reading "Mısır"? Do Indians waste their time indulging in outrage that the Turkish name for India is "Hindistan", literally, "turkey land"?

There has yet to be a contributor to these discussions who's claimed that Türkiye has become the dominant name in relevant sources who has taken the trouble to produce a demonstration compliant with the applicable guidelines that that is so. It's true that many have taken the trouble to show that some prominent sources (the UN, Google Maps, the Olympics) have done so, but it's always a demonstration that some sources have changed, never a demonstration that the new usage now predominates. Where's your demonstration? Largoplazo (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: you are bludgeoning.

Random comments about Indians and Egyptians also seem like WP:Forum Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm going to bludgeon these links: BBC[11], New York Times[12], Reuters[13], CNN[14], Financial Times[15], Wall Street Journal[16], The Guardian[17], NBC[18]. It's the third time I've added them to this thread. When a similar number of recent links using Türkiye can be produced from publications of similar standing in the English-speaking world (and not governments and international organisations and the like) then, in Wikipedia terms, there's something to discuss. The focus needs to be on producing evidence like that rather vague assertions about being "up to date" and chatter about poultry confusion. It's evidence rather than claims that's needed. DeCausa (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Quite simply, a country that is not predominantly English speaking is incapable of "changing its English name" in the sense you mean here. It can only change the form it uses when using English. The rest of the world is not beholden to it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to know what American sources you see uding the new spelling. Because I still see Turkey everywhere. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes

KarsVegas36, you are adding unreliable sources. See WP:RS.

In this edit, [19]:

• lesartsturcs.com is a commercial website
• [20] is questionable. Oxford Companion to Food is a much better source.

The way you changed the wording in Cuisine, using both Oxford Companion to Food and the online source is WP:SYNTH.

Your addition to music is WP:UNDUE [21]. 88 notes pour piano solo is a random book, please use an overview source about Turkey, such as Music in Turkey etc. I already have an overview source about music in Turkey [22], I just didn't get around to re-writing this section. Bogazicili (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I've revised the edits per wiki instructions. The status-quo was too vague; I've added many details which you missed. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

These are still problematic edits.

You added a book, [23], Turkish Cuisine in Historical Perspective from Oglak Guzel Kitaplar publishing.

• First of all, there are no page numbers? Are we supposed to read the entire book to verify the information you put in?
• Second of all, per WP:RS (WP:SCHOLARSHIP), academic presses such as Oxford University Press is preferred. The Oxford Companion to Food is a much better source.

Can you provide a quote from Turkish Cuisine in Historical Perspective to verify the information you put in? Bogazicili (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You're reverting everything en-masse instead of reverting the edits partially in specific sections. You basically have no excuse for reverting the music and sports sub-sections. In music, I've given references from very credible instuitions whilst in sports, the refs are directly from FIFA and Vakıfbank.

Well, I don't see any page numbers in Oxford reference as well. I actually don't see pages in many references in this page. But still, anyways:

Turkish Cuisine in Historical Perspective, p. 114: "Rather than remaining insular, the cuisine evolved through centuries of cultural exchange, adopting the yogurt-based dishes of Central Asia, the olive oil and legumes of the Mediterranean, the pastry of the Balkans, and the aromatic blends from the Middle East."

Now could you please provide me an excerpt from the Oxford ref where we cannot generalize the cuisine regions like my current edit does and instead just go for 'Iranian' rather than 'Mid East' and leaving out the Iraqi or Syrian connection to the Turkish cuisine? Plus, I couldn't find anything credible in scholarship ref databases regarding the so called 'Anatolian' cuisine which is supposedly mentioned in the past reference. I believe it was to be an indication pre-Turkish Anatolian civs' cuisines, though they were already absorbed by Hellenization waay before reaching the Turkish era. KarsVegas36 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't have space to include every minutia [24]. The article is already more than 10k words. See WP:DUE and WP:Article size. Also see WP:ONUS.

Here's the quote from Turkey entry in The Oxford Companion to Food (accessible through Wikipedia library):

a country whose history is mirrored in its food. Applying the archaeological concept of strata to Turkish cuisine reveals fairly distinct stages of evolution, successively superimposed on each other. One can discern Far Eastern, C. Asian, Iranian, Anatolian, and Mediterranean layers, each of them reflecting one stage in the long and complex history of migration that has enabled the Turkish people both to exert and to receive influence all across Eurasia

Bogazicili (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Read my question again. I asked for something else, and this quotation does not cover my question.

'The article is already more than 10k words' is another topic. It doesn't justify any of your removals of my edits which are fairly explanatory and simple. You should hunt words in other sections where the congestions persist. The sections that we're talking about are veery summarized already. KarsVegas36 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You asked for where Anatolian and Iranian comes from, I provided the quote.

Please go to WP:RSN and ask if Turkish Cuisine in Historical Perspective from Oglak Guzel Kitaplar publishing is a reliable source. Then we can adjust the wording in line with WP:NPOV.

Your additions to sports are simply WP:UNDUE. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, you are the one who should make sure your additions to sports has consensus, or your addition to Cuisine has a reliable source. Bogazicili (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear Boğaziçili; as a Varşovalı, you're still not replying to me with the correct context. I asked something completely else.

But nevertheless, I've replaced the reference with the reference and context directly from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. It also has a free preview for everybody to see. I think we agree on the fact that the current presentation of 'regions' instead of singular countries is covering the topic much better. KarsVegas36 (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You changed the wording 4 times and the source 3 times, but the wording stayed the same, this looks suspicious [25] [26] [27] [28].

Ministry of Culture and Tourism is still not an academic press. I don't understand why you are removing a higher quality source (The Oxford Companion to Food) and adding something lower quality.

Also what do you mean as a Varşovalı? Are you the IP from my talk page? [29]? Are you User:Dudewithafez? Besides the WP:Socking issue, changing higher quality sources with lower quality sources is not helping in GA process. Bogazicili (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili You serious rn? The wording stays the same because it is the 'reality'. I've given you a state-published book with free access, and yet you wanna play the self-styled police of the article. Oxford ain't God's own words. We can use other references as well. Oxford's info does not cover as much info as the Ministry of Culture's one as it singles out 'Iran' rather than encompassing Mid East as a general fact. This has nothing to do with the GA process. You should spend your time on other issues at hand, which are plenty on this page.

Listing WP rules like a holdem game or pressing on trivial matter doesn't make you any righteous. Go sweat somewhere else rather than making pennies. Instead of opposing every single move, try to be proactive since we're all trying to improve this page the way we can. And also, Varşovalı as in the University of Warsaw. I've graduated from there. Who is IP from your talk? KarsVegas36 (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course "Oxford ain't God's own words".

If the situation was reversed, if it was the British Ministry of Culture and Tourism or whatever, compared to a Turkish academic press such as ODTÜ Yayınları, I'd say ODTÜ Yayınları is the higher quality source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

That's why I asked you to go to WP:RSN and ask if your source is reliable, then we can find a solution based on WP:NPOV. Otherwise you can proceed to WP:DRN as well.

I am really surprised that you seem so passionate about changing well-sourced content in Cuisine. Bogazicili (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You are also adding WP:UNDUE information or adding sources such as icma-info.com, whatever that is.[30]. You are adding bare links into sources.

There are so many problems with your edits, including WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:CITE. Also see: WP:ONUS and WP:Burden. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Made in Turkey: Studies in Popular Music is an excellent source for Turkey#Music_and_dance, but please add page numbers when you are adding content from lengthy sources such as books. If the source does not have page numbers, similar to Oxford Companion to Food, you can add the specific entry. Bogazicili (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Definition of Government

A user wrote "authoritarian government" to the government section without consensus. Why this bs still not removed? 37.155.78.254 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

So True! Datawikiperson (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

A proper edit request with a source (rather than just an "I know because I live there") would allow WP:BRD to be followed. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, the opposition won the 2024 elections! Datawikiperson (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

We follow what WP:RS say. I have added a significant number of recent citations. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Arresting political opponents doesn’t count. Datawikiperson (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

They don’t REALLY count. It is a step to authoritarianism, but not there yet. Listen to the Turks! Datawikiperson (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Also let’s look at an actual authoritarian country, like Russia. In Russia, the opposition cannot even register for the elections, and even then, the Primary party, United Russia has won every single election non-stop for the past 20 years by rigging the elections and scaring people away from voting for the opposition, and all the opposition in Russia is fake and supported by the Kremlin anyway. Not to talk about the fact that it is really hard for there to be any opposition media. Much harder than in Turkey. Most of it is state-run propagandaand the only way people can learn the truth is via internet. In the meanwhile the opposition just won the 2024 elections, it’s easier to have opposition media, things aren’t as censored, and yeah. It is not authoritarian. Also there is better freedom of speech among other things. The state of emergency where all this arresting happened already finished, and all the sources about authoritarianism where from this time. Datawikiperson (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe in 5 years, it would be authoritarian, but not now. Datawikiperson (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss this with you opinion-to-opinion if we don't know precisely what you consider to distinguish an authoritarian government from a non-authoritarian government, and you haven't told us that. You've given us only bits and pieces of "an authoritarian government does this, it doesn't do that". But we really don't need to go into that because it's beside the point. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources are saying about it—because Wikipedia is essentially meant to be a compendium of information found in reliable sources, not of its editors' opinions and their understanding of things. If reliable sources are calling it "authoritarian" (and Black Kite has just added a bunch of up-to-date sources that call it that), then we reflect that. If you disagree with those sources, you need to be debating with them, and this isn't the place to do that. Largoplazo (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

They never called them authoritarian, they just said turkey was moving towards authoritarianism. Datawikiperson (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's as though you didn't even look at them before commenting.

But critics warned he was becoming increasingly autocratic. By 2013, protesters took to the streets, partly because of his government's plans to transform a much-loved park in the centre of Istanbul, but also in a challenge to more authoritarian rule. (BBC) The necessary premise is that he was already autocratic and was exercising authoritarian rule and was now increasing the level of his grip.

Years of massive purges in the administration, persecution of intellectuals and artists, and adoption of anti-liberal laws show that Erdogan's authoritarian drift is nothing new. (France24)

Now, we are starting to find out what happens when even partial democracy becomes a significant threat to the authoritarians. The latest example comes from Turkey, where protests are raging across the country after the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu, the mayor of Istanbul and the country’s most prominent opposition politician. (New York Times) The heading and subheading of the article are For Some Autocrats, Even Rigged Elections Can Be Too Much of a Threat; Protests are raging in Turkey after the arrest of the country’s most prominent opposition politician. In other words, Erdogan is an autocrat.

How Turkey Became a De Facto Dictatorship (HuffPost) The whole article was written to hammer on this point. Largoplazo (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

They never said Turkey is an autocracy! They said it was Heading towards it! There is a very big gap between heading and being. I read them multiple times! They just said that Turkey is heading to an autocratic regime! Just because a country is more of an autocracy does’nt mean it is! All of the ones that do are from the state of emergency, when Erdogan was doing purges left and right after the coup attempt, but it’s over now! Just a quick google search will tell you It is not! Heading, but not there. Datawikiperson (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You keep saying "heading heading heading" while the actual words say it's there and getting worse. Largoplazo (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Authoritarian ≢ autocratic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

When media worry about autocracies, they aren't worrying about nice ones that treat everybody very well and allow them complete freedom, political or otherwise. The varieties in question are, practically speaking, authoritarian, totalitarian, and despotic. Largoplazo (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Turkey is neither authoritarian nor autocratic. Just saying. Datawikiperson (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Read the sources. They never say that Turkey is autocratic. Datawikiperson (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

What is this, 1984?

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?' ‘Four.'
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?'
‘Four.'
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five.

At least two of the sources say "autocratic", as I showed above. Largoplazo (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

More on "authoritarian". Don't even think of pretending that none of these say Erdoğan's rule is authoritarian.

• "Erdoğan's Latest Autocratic Crackdown". Journal of Democracy. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
• hhanes (2024-10-18). "How not to dethrone an authoritarian leader: The case of Turkey's Erdoğan". FDD. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
• "Turkey: Is Erdogan taking an even more authoritarian turn? – DW – 03/27/2025". dw.com. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
• "Why Türkiye Is at a Tipping Point Between Democracy and Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
• "How Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Turkey's most powerful leader". NPR. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
• Erdogan's Path to Authoritarianism: The Continuing Journey. Archived from the original on 2024-11-13.
• "What next for Turkey: More authoritarianism? – DW – 03/29/2025". dw.com. Retrieved 2025-04-19.
• "The coronavirus has led to more authoritarianism for Turkey". Brookings. Retrieved 2025-04-19.

Largoplazo (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

First, I never said I supported erdogan or his policies, I never said that in erdogan’s rule, everything was nice, there was lots of freedom and democracy, of course his wanted his country to be authoritarian! But read the sources! They say that Turkey is heading torwards authoritiism. In DW, you may find this, but It says at the end I quote “Despite all the pessimism, Esen believes there could still be a turnaround. "Imamoglu has become a political symbol. Social resistance is strong because young people have nothing left to lose. I think that Turkey will stop two stops before Russia and Venezuela. So, is all this reversible? Yes, but it will be difficult." So it says that all this authotarian new rules and changes can be reversed, unlike in countries like Russia and Venezuela, and to quote it “stop 2 stops” so just before entering Authotarianism. I kinda cherry picked them, as he also says anything could happen, but you get the point. Also the protests are winning. To quote the BBC “In the past two days, the courts in Istanbul have either released or freed on bail 185 people who took part in demonstrations against the mayor's detention at Sarachane square in Istanbul.

Two journalists working for pro-opposition newspapers were also released on bail on Friday for investigating the sale of a TV station.” And also The opposition leader made the first court appearance, so they are giving him a chance. Read the article if you like in here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgexjkx3v3o

Also, this may not be in this point, but India also arrested their opposition leader a year ago, so does that mean India is authoritarian? Datawikiperson (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"The opposition leader made the first court appearance, so they are giving him a chance."?? Are you actually serious? Non-authoritarian countries don't arrest their opposition leaders on trumped-up charges. And yes, India's article (Narendra Modi) refers to democratic backsliding there as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, what I said there was kinda stupid, but you are overlooking everything. Also In that case, why is India not considered an authoritarian country? Is it because it is a US ally? Datawikiperson (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether your question is why the India article doesn't call its government "authoritarian" or why reliable sources don't call it authoritarian. If reliable sources do call India authoritarian but the India article doesn't, that's an issue to pursue (perhaps it's already been pursued, I haven't looked) at Talk:India, but it's off-topic here. If reliable sources don't call India authoritarian, then neither should the India article, but the determination for this article is based on what sources say about Turkey, not what they say about India. If, among reliable sources, there's inconsistency in the terms used to describe the governments of the two countries, then your issue is with them and this isn't the place to discuss why the sources should or shouldn't be using particular terminology. Largoplazo (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

First, I never said I supported erdogan or his policies, I never said that in erdogan’s rule, everything was nice, there was lots of freedom and democracy, ...: I never said or implied you said that those things, so I don't know why you're suddenly protesting as though I had.

Every single one of the sources I listed speaks of authoritarianism that's already there. "More authoritarianism" and "authoritarian escalation" mean the authoritarianism is there and getting worse. One doesn't say a government is becoming "more authoritarian" if it isn't already authoritarian; if it isn't already authoritarian, then one says that it's becoming "authoritarian", without the "more". Describing Erdoğan as an "authoritarian leader" and comparing him to "other authoritarian rulers" means his leadership/rule is authoritarian. "Since 2015, Türkiye has been a textbook example of what political scientists call a competitive authoritarian regime": it's been authoritarian since 2015. Largoplazo (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't argue that Erdogan is authoritarian or not, but "under an authoritarian government doesn't makes sense. Does the authoritarian government change the presidential system? It is still presidential system. People here talking like both are opposite of eachother. Unless it is a hereditary dictatorship like North Korea, which claims to be a republic, I don't see a reason to include this. This has to be discussed more. Beshogur (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well an authoritarian government is like Russia or Venezuela. They claim to be a republic, however they rig the elections to the point where the actual opposition cannot win in any election. Datawikiperson (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

However Turkey is not authoritarian as the still win! Datawikiperson (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Opposition can still win!

Datawikiperson (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as the "form of government" entry in the infobox goes, I've made that argument myself elsewhere, that whether the style of governance is authoritarian or not is separate from the form of government. After all, the infobox at Mexico says "Federal presidential republic", not "Federal presidential republic under a laissez-faire government" or "Federal presidential republic under a government that respects its constitutional limitations". So that's a separate matter from the one of whether the body of the article can properly describe the government as authoritarian. Largoplazo (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well then Hungary should have the tag, same thing with India and Singapore. Datawikiperson (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Plus I don’t even understand what you mean anyway. Datawikiperson (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, all three should ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s what I was trying to argue for! Turkey is still a competitive authoritarian regime, where the opposition can win at least in theory, like India or Hungary. This “insert government system here under an authoritarian regime” is reserved for complete authtarian countries like Russia or Venezuela, where the opposition virtually cannot win, they keep extending the term length, and it is very very difficult to change unless a full blown revolution happens, in which neither is happening in Turkey, except the revolution part, but it is not because of what I said previously. Datawikiperson (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm giving up responding to you after this. "It isn't authoritarian", "It's only heading toward authoritarianism", "none of the sources says it's authoritarian" (even though they clearly do), but now, suddenly you affirm that "That's what I was trying to argue for! Turkey is still a competitive authoritarian regime", as though either you don't see the word "authoritarian" in there or you think "competitive" is a synonym for "not". Largoplazo (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In other words, it is a hybrid regime. Datawikiperson (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said Turkey didn’t act authoritarian. It is not authoritarian enough to put it in the same category as Russia or Belarus. It is in the same realm as Hungary, India, etc. Datawikiperson (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Competitive authoritarian regime = Hybrid regime. If a country is considered a hybrid regime, is it authoritarian? Tell me is it? But since it has the word “authoritarian, you automatically assume that it is an authoritarian regime! Datawikiperson (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly what I have been arguing with this person. They keep claiming it is no it authoritarian without providing sources that refute the claim and defaulting to “I live here, and it isn’t” which isn’t a good enough reason. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Whether the system of government should be called authoritarian or not is a content dispute, not vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"authoritarian" isn't even a form of government. Beshogur (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Really? This New York Times' piece is about when, in their opinion, political leaders move to a "more authoritarian form of government" (to labour the point, that's their terminology) and they give Erdoğan as a "minor" example - Putin being the major one in their view. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

So tell me what authoritarianism of Erdogan contradicts presidential republic? Presidential republic already gives the president the power to give decrees etc. Erdogan is literally exercising his power. So le'ts change USA to Federal presidential republic to Federal presidential republic under a two party system. I am saying here that "authoritarian government" is not a form of government, parliamentary / presidential system is. Parliamentary leaders can be authoritarian too like Orban. If you are all honest on this, put the same label to Hungary too, then I'll accept. Beshogur (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

To answer your questions would be to engage in OR. I’m just parroting RS. NYT in this case. DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but verification doesn't mean inclusion. We are talking here about the infobox. There are dozens of reliable sources that describes Orban as authortarian as well, even on his page here. Stop dodging the question. I am saying that "authoritarian government" has no place on the infobox unless it's a kind of dictatorship that claims to being a republic. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Orban is categorised in exactly the same way as Erdogan in the NYT article. I din’t understand why you think there’s a difference. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No I meant Hungary article. If those will be equal, then alright. But in my opinion "authoritarian government" has no place on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m completely confused. Whats the Hungary article got to do with it? DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

How are you confused. I explained that Orban is similar to Erdogan, but Hungary has not the "authoritarian government" on the infobox. That's it. But again, imo there shouldn't be "authoritarian government" on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Hungary article. I don't think I've ever read it. Why is it so important for this article? That was the point of the NYT article I linked to. Orban and Erdogan were treated in exactly the same way. Both "minor" examples of "authoritarian" forms of government. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Will try to explain again:

- We're talking about the infobox here

- Orban is similarly described to Erdogan

- Hungary article has no "authoritarian government" on the infobox

- authoritarianism can be mentioned on the article of course but not on the infobox, since it's not a form of government (ie. parliamentary / presidential, etc.)

Either both should have the same terminology or none, but I say that none of them should have since I have repeated my arguments. Beshogur (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Btw don't get me wrong, you say you're lawyer, but I told here 5 times infobox before that. Beshogur (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I think you agree on this as well. Beshogur (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I do. Largoplazo (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That all depends how you define "form of government". I would tend to agree with Beshogur here, but the tile of this section is still "vandalism", which this is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's true. Wasn't talking about that, but was an answer to ErickTheMerrick. Beshogur (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, It isn’t really outright Vandalism, but I agree with Beshogur. If Turkey has the label, Hungary, India and many others should have the label too! Datawikiperson (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before. The level of democracy can be subjective and this is not something that really belongs in the infobox. A republic can be democratic, authoritarian, or a hybrid of both. We wouldn't write something like "federal republic under a democratic government". Mellk (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, however I think this tag should be in place for countries that are de jure democracies but de facto one-party states, like Venezuela, Russia, Etc… Datawikiperson (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure, there isn't a clear line on this. Japan is also a de facto one-party state (dominant-party system, to be more precise), then you also have other countries with de facto two-party systems, and so on. Mellk (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but at-least the people keep voting for the party each time, like in Japan the party lost the 2024 elections, and most people in America haven’t even heard of any other party than republicans or democrats. In a de-facto one-party state, even if the people are discontent, they can just keep rigging the elections, making the party win each time! Datawikiperson (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

For full-blown dictatorships, it might be possible to write dictatorship in the infobox if there is a consensus among RS and this is reflected in the main text. For this article, I don't think there is such any such consensus that Turkey is a full-blown dictatorship. Erdoğan is often called a strongman, a leader with an authoritarian style of government, or that there is a high degree of personalism etc. The other issue is that these are all news sources that are being cited and the body only simply says that the system has been described as "competitive authoritarian". Mellk (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and this is why I think we should revert it back to just unitary presidential republic. Datawikiperson (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I will also say it would be equally valid to say "hybrid regime" but then this highlights the problem with mentioning the supposed level of democracy in the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should only summarize key facts. Mellk (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Datawikiperson (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I am very concerned about some of the low quality sources added by Largoplazo in the talk page [31]. For example, Foundation for Defense of Democracies is just a pro-Israeli lobby group in United States. It is not a high quality source per WP:Scholarship. Posting this on this talk page to support an argument is like posting a fossil fuel lobby group "analysis" in Talk:Climate change.

If there is a dispute, please proceed to WP:DR. Sources provided by Black Kite and ErickTheMerrick seem to be just newspaper sources. They are not high quality sources per WP:Scholarship. Bogazicili (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

What does being pro-Israel have to do with the value of one's assessment of Turkey as authoritarian? Anyway, you haven't indicted all the sources I gave, and I'm not supposing you have anything against Deutsche Welle or the Carnegie Endowment. In addition, my purpose wasn't to provide only the most solid citations but to provide a flood of them in reaction to Datawikiperson's gaslighting as to the outright nonexistence of sources that call Turkey authoritarian or autocratic, as though people in the discussion were making it all up. Largoplazo (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You can ask if lobby groups can be considered WP:RS in WP:RSN, especially for things you seem to want to add in wikivoice.

I'd also be very very concerned if a fossil fuel lobby group "analysis" was posted in Talk:Climate change, especially from an editor with a six digit edit count. Bogazicili (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes being pro-Israel has something to do with Turkey, as If you’re pro Israel, anti-Erdogan because he is known for his anti-Israel policies, and 2. How am I gaslighting! If you can actually read, you can tell that no-news source officially declares Turkey is authoritarian, in the same ranks as Russia or Belarus. Never, go read them on your own! They say Turkey is heading towards, they say Erdogan and his party are autocrats, But never turkey in the same ranks as Russia or Venezuela or Cambodia etc, and 3, even if they officially declare that, if they’re a bad source, there’s no point! After all, a point made by a 1 good source > a point made by a 100 bad sources! Datawikiperson (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If you’re pro Israel, you’re anti-Turkey What absolute, utter nonsense. And now you're gaslighting about your gaslighting. Largoplazo (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You’re taking it out of context. I meant to say If you’re pro-Israel, you’re generally anti-Erdogan, not anti-Turkey, and that’s the general consensus, I never said this is it, there are exceptions, not thing is black or white, but still! Datawikiperson (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

In other words, I should just not bother with relying on what you say to be what you mean. And If you’re pro Israel, you’re anti-Turkey is a statement in absolute terms, a black-and-white statement, that you made. Largoplazo (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I was doing something called “generalising”. Ooh what is that? Generalising is saying what most people believe! Wow! New term! Datawikiperson (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Your were making a false generalization. Everyone knows how innocent and helpful those are. Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I already changed it so it doesn’t look like I wasn’t making a false generalisation. I apologise for anyone who I fooled. Datawikiperson (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"Just newspaper sources". Right. They are reliable sources. Whilst I understand why a number of Turkish editors are trying to whitewash this article, go and look at Erdogan's own article and then ask yourself why pretty much none of the material about the current backsliding of democracy is included in this article. Why is that, do you think? I think this may need some more outside eyes on it, because at the moment it is not really representative of the current political issues in Turkey. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

But it's not just a number of Turkish editors. I agree that Erdoğan is an authoritarian and autocratic president, but that does not become the "form of government" to put in the infobox unless and until he cancels elections, just the same as for Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Narendra Modi in India and Donald Trump in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

One could argue that having your main political opponent thrown in jail on flaky charges (and then restricting social media to stop people protesting about it) is not far off the same thing. I'm not really bothered about the infobox, though, it's the fact that the article - apart from a single sentence about the judiciary becoming non-independent - simply ignores the recent past in terms of politics. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Technically he's not jailing it. The judiciary is "independent". Also as I told, that's what a presidential republic is. He isn't abusing any power, but using what he was given in the 2017 referendum. Personally I don't care what it's written here, but my issue was the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, India did it too, yet they are not considered a dictatorship. If it was, then they would ban/heavily limit the opposition. It’s too soon to say that Turkey is now an authoritarian regime because of 1 thing. Datawikiperson (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

India's democratic issues are mentioned - at length - in the country article, and also in Modi's. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that I believe is wrong, because I think that it should only be mentioned if the country turns into a full-blown dictatorship, and even if it’s right, still it proves my point further! India has the information but not the tag, so turkey doesn’t need to have the tag, even with the info. Datawikiperson (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Because the democratic backsliding is not as bad as what Putin or Lukashenko did! Sure notable enough to be in a Wikipedia article, but not enough to declare it a dictatorship. Datawikiperson (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That's my point - it's not even mentioned, despite being one of the defining characteristics of Turkey in the last decade. Look how much space is devoted to it in Erdogan's article. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so that nullifies your point that turkey is a dictatorship! Datawikiperson (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

At no point have I said that Turkey is a dictatorship, so your "point" (if there was one) is invalid. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but I meant to say that that nullifies your point of turkey having the “authotarian regime” tag! Datawikiperson (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Turkey's current government is, clearly, authoritarian. That's not the discussion we're having here (or, at least the one that everyone else is having). The discussion is whether the authoritarian tag belongs in the infobox of this article. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and the answer is yes, but for turkey having the authoritarian tag, no. Datawikiperson (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite: It's a real pity that Wikipedia has regressed to the level that administrators are using newspapers to illustrate an academic point. You can find zillion such sources, which you can call 'reliable', but there's no scholarly consensus to support the claim that Türkiye has an authoritarian regime (there's certainly democratic backsliding, political repression and policy brutality against protesters, but elections are still held at regular intervals and political plurality is respected). Furthermore, The Economist Democracy Index doesn't yet classify Türkiye as an authoritarian regime. There's a growing amount of reliable sources describing Trump's administration as 'authoritarian' (see UC Berkeley News, NPR, The Guardian etc.). Shall we edit the infobox in the article on the United States to reflect this?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Kiril Simeonovski: Using reliable sources to cite something is "regressing"? Amazing. However, whether a government is "authoritarian" or not is absolutely not purely an academic point and I have no idea why you think that it is; we reflect what is written in reliable sources and those sources do not have to be scholarly. Regardless, as mentioned enough times now, the issue here is not whether Erdogan's regime is authoritarian or not (you only need to read his own article to get a general consensus on that, and that article is the place to discuss it anyway) but whether that information was WP:DUE in the infobox on this article. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I think your opinion is quite wide off the mark. Whether a government is 'authoritarian' or not is a scientific designation, and the science that studies the different forms of government is called 'political science'. News outlets are reliable sources for current events because it's impossible to write and publish scientific papers in a matter of hours (that's why media exist), but they're definitely not reliable enough and should be avoided when we have scientific sources written by specialists in the field and peer-reviewed by other specialists. What you're doing here is arguing that something is the case using non-scientific sources that you call 'reliable', probably because they're reliable for current events, when there are evidently scientific sources that are peer-reviewed. Moreover, this is disrespectful to the scholars in the field as the argumentation equates the reliability of their works with that of the works written by journalists. Unfortunately, that's sheer regression. As for whether that should end up in the infobox, my opinion is a resounding no. The infobox should document facts, not qualified opinions. If the country is a 'unitary presidential republic' by constitution, then that's what should be written there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  OK, I'm not going to argue the point any more (because the issue about the infobox been decided here, as you say) but as someone who actually studied a similar subject at university, I find it ridiculous that we would try to ring-fence "the only reliable sources" into what is effectively a niche area. Regardless, many newspaper items are written by people who are political scientists or experts, or they are written using the expertise of those people. Do we ignore those? Of course we don't. Are scholarly sources better than the best news sources? Of course not, how elitist can you get? Yes, obviously we're not going to use tabloid press or regurgitated political soundbites, but I see no reason at all for using respected RS for this topic. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Academics publish their works as papers in peer-reviewed journals or as independent books—that's the standard within the academic community. If academics used news outlets for publishing, no journals would exist at all. Of course, there are some who provide input or write articles for newspapers and websites themselves, but they typically do this to promote their own work, which is elaborated in a paper or a book, to the general public in plain language. I don't think 'news sources' can be compared to 'scholarly sources' (they're simply different as cheese and chalk), but I'd definitely trust a reputable journal than a reputable news outlet for a variety of reasons (in first place, there's no peer review of a news article). Note that there have been numerous scientific discoveries nominated at ITN, and the discussions have always been diverted from news sources to scholarly sources. A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon an interesting news article with a real estate market analysis published by the Bloomberg News, a reputable news outlet in finance and economics, and immediately spotted a suggestive tone and mistakes that are typically not found in scholarly sources.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Source:

Source: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/how-turkeys-opposition-won-big/ Datawikiperson (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Also let’s look at an actual authoritarian country, like Russia. In Russia, the opposition cannot even register for the elections, and even then, the Primary party, United Russia has won every single election non-stop for the past 20 years by rigging the elections and scaring people away from voting for the opposition, and all the opposition in Russia is fake and supported by the Kremlin anyway. Not to talk about the fact that it is really hard for there to be any opposition media. Much harder than in Turkey. Most of it is state-run propaganda and the only way people can learn the truth is via internet. In the meanwhile the opposition just won the 2024 elections, it’s easier to have opposition media, things aren’t as censored, and yeah. It is not authoritarian. Also there is better freedom of speech among other things. The state of emergency where all this arresting happened already finished, and all the sources about authoritarianism where from this time. Datawikiperson (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

See my comment in the preceding section. Also, creating four sections to complain about the same thing is disruptive. This talk page is not a forum. Please stop. Largoplazo (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Datawikiperson, no need to remove your topic, especially if someone else responded. You can just strike your text with <s></s> if you want. Your topic will get archived later. Bogazicili (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ohh, alright. Thanks for the info! Datawikiperson (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

Turkey doesn’t have an official coat of arms, the coat of arms mentioned is de facto, and only used as as a placeholder used in embassies, passports, etc, so I don’t think it should be removed, but a tag saying it’s de-facto. Datawikiperson (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not even de facto. Fully removed. Beshogur (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"Authoritarian Government"

This is already being discussed above. Please don't create new discussions about the same thing.
Do not add that here please, it has not backed by any source or at least by international governments. I can say that Opposition in Turkey is not oppressed just like in Russia. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

HDI

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

HDI Index with a decrease icon

• Why it should be changed:

The HDI index report from 2022, indicates that Türkiyes HDI index was 0.855, the 2023 report was published today and the HDI index is 0.853, with a positive icon. Change it to decrease.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Damdumdim (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It didn't actually decrease. Purchasing power parity data got updated, see International Comparison Program

2023-2024 report uses 2017 PPP $, 2025 report uses 2021 PPP $.

In p. 283 of the 2025 report, you can see that the adjusted value for 2022 was 0.853 which was the same in 2023. Bogazicili (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ara sıra

188.3.79.11 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (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. Cannolis (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing Requested Move discussion as per WP:SNOWCLOSE and WP:RMEC due to the participants users are against to move the current title to suggested move title. (closed by non-admin page mover) --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  05:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a consensus for a one-year moratorium on further requested moves to "Türkiye" and variants thereof. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Turkey → Türkiye – Türkiye is now the official international name adopted by the Republic of Türkiye. It is increasingly used by international bodies (UN, NATO, etc.), and acknowledging this change helps readers understand the updated geopolitical context. Vinizex94 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close: no new argument has been brought up; see FAQ. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vinizex94: please stop. Beshogur (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me...What do you mean "Please stop"? Are you telling me that I should stop further commenting on this talk page? I certainly don't think so. You neither have the right nor the authority to tell me that. Also, I'm a newcomer. Please be nice to at least other new-comers if you can't be nice to me. I also apologize for the earlier confusion of mistakenly moving this talk page to an unexisting one. Vinizex94🌍 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed like 1000 times literally. This is wasting people's time. Beshogur (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Snow close per above. Mellk (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I also support a moratorium. Mellk (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: see prior discussions in January 2022, January 2022 again, June 2022, September 2022, November 2022, February 2023, February 2024, and October 2024. There was a moratorium on move discussions from December 2022 to December 2023, and the closer of the discussion last October requested a three month moratorium (this request didn't go anywhere). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The most relevant part of the article title policy is WP:NAMECHANGE. Since the official name change, reliable English language sources mostly continue to use "Turkey". I encourage everyone to review the prior discussions and consider whether the counterarguments raised there can be overcome. I would happily change my mind based on analysis that shows that most sources have shifted, but we have never been shown such analysis, and we instead continue to see discussions and RMs started with no actual engagement with policy and the body of sources. Based on that, I'd support a one year moratorium on name change discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above opposition. Such changes take years to implement. East Timor was controversially moved to Timor-Leste at Talk:Timor-Leste#Requested move 16 December 2024, but it engendered a move review and insistence that there was no consensus for the move. At least Timor-Leste uses no accents or diacritics, such as in the failed proposal to move Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire at Talk:Ivory Coast#Requested move 27 June 2024. When, years from now, this name will have a greater possibility of being moved, the English exonym is likely to be Turkiye, not Türkiye, since there is not a single English exonym that uses accents or diacritics in a nation's name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  since there is not a single English exonym that uses accents or diacritics in a nation's name that's not true, there are English words with diacritics, including Côte d'Ivoire. Beshogur (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As already mentioned directly above, the English exonym for that nation continues to be Ivory Coast. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support FIFA, the EBU, and others all use Türkiye. If we can get over the 2" barrier to watch subtitled films, I'm certain that we can allow Turkey to be known by the name requested by its government. doktorb _words^deeds 18:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  You've failed to apply the criteria for article naming found at WP:COMMONNAME. No idea what subtitled films have to do with it or what the 2" barrier is. Largoplazo (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Türkiye is used by international bodies, as is Timor-Leste and Eswatini. That feels pretty COMMONNAME to me. doktorb _words^deeds 19:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The guideline says "[I]t generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". It, much later, offers as a help, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe [emphasis mine] the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." You seem to have interpreted all this as "Do what major international organizations are doing." Largoplazo (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I hate subtitles. They take me right out of the experience. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and impose a moratorium. The nominator was told about this at #Türkiye changed english name and decided to go against as if opening a RM would create a new consensus (consensus can change? Of course, but some common sense is required as well before beliving that the consensus has changed). As the nominator said here [32]: "I think we should put this to an open vote for all editors", as if Wikipedia was a democracy, and "But no one was able to make an actual point", is basically saying that those opposing the new name can't have opinions or reject such proposals because the supporters are just right. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close because the nominator has not only not given any policy-based justification, but, after already having received an explanation of what a policy-based justification would call for, acknowledged 13 minutes before the nomination, in writing Per WP:COMMONNAME, I understand and respect that “Turkey” remains the prevailing term in English-language reliable sources, that there isn't such a justification. The nominator also wrote Also, I'm a newcomer. Please be nice to at least other new-comers if you can't be nice to me. Fair enough, but that the flip side is that a newcomer, having received guidance from old-timers, ought to have a willingness to learn from them and not give signs that they didn't take it seriously. Largoplazo (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, yeah, one-year moratorium as well. Largoplazo (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose move, snowclose, and moratorium. Reliable sources continue to use "Turkey", and no evidence of a change in usage has been provided. O.N.R. ^(talk) 22:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Move to close, as Largoplazo has pointed out that the original poster agrees that Turkey is the common name. As such, there is no reason to continue the discusson. I also support a moratorium (of whatever length, I prefer 1 year) on discussions. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  How do you say that reliable sources continue to use Turkey and not Türkiye? please provide evidence. Also, many international bodies have already adopted the new name. Well... at least exept Wikipedia Vinizex94🌍 01:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  You're the one requesting the change, the burden is on you and on others who voice support for the move to justify it through a review of applicable sources. What determines a successful outcome for a move request is greater evidence that the criteria for such a move have been met than there is that they have not been met. If, as a newcomer, you're unsure what we're talking about in the way of sources, it will benefit you to read through previous move discussions to get the necessary context.

  By "many international bodies have already adopted the new name" you're repeating what you said in the first place. I've already responded to that. Largoplazo (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Moratorium, clear the past RMs have not been considered. CMD (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Türkiyean wishes notwithstanding, article titles are based on common names. —  AjaxSmack  04:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is a bit difficult for searchers to add the letter ü to the word Türkiye. Moreover, English Wikipedia rarely uses this letter. Baqotun0023 (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even the OP acknowledges that Turkey is the WP:COMMONNAME (quote: Per WP:COMMONNAME, I understand and respect that “Turkey” remains the prevailing term in English-language reliable sources.). A moratorium may be appropriate at this stage, given this is the eighth RM on this proposal in three and a half years. Kahastok talk 09:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I would ask not to use "snowclose" argument as it looks like silencing opponents; however numerous (or few) they can be, not to create a spiral of silence. Moratorium — maybe. But not "for ever more". — 2dk (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Silence opponents? The people calling for snow close are opponents, but on procedural grounds. Largoplazo (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Howardcorn33. No new argument has been brought up. Wikipedia prefers common names over official names if they are in conflict. This same move has been proposed already seven times in the past, and the article was not moved on any of them. JIP | Talk 10:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose until there are reliable sources stating that the name decreed by this authority with limited jurisdiction has become the WP:COMMONNAME in the English language. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose Remember, WP:COMMONNAME! Most still call it Turkey, not Türkiye! This is Wikipedia, where most used names are used, Not official names. If most people call Turkey “poopy pants”, poopy pants would be put, not Türkiye, so yeah. Datawikiperson (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The common name is still Turkey, Erdogan doesn't get the right to change other languages as he pleases.
• Oppose & one-year moratorium. No new information or evidence to support this change. I will be surprised if there is a change in 12 months but that's the soonest it would be reasonable to re-evaluate and anything longer is overkill. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Turkey remains the WP:COMMONNAME in the English language — since Erdogan made his demands more than three years ago, I have not heard a single person refer to it as 'Türkiye' (besides humorously). Furthermore, while this does not necessarily constitute a valid argument against the change being adopted in regards to Wikipedia, I am also inclined to question why the Turkish government thought it should make this decision in the first place.

Off-topic tangent, see WP:NOTFORUM

First of all, ü is virtually nonexistent in the English language — diacritics in general are rare, hence why they are absent from the English keyboard. If someone has to type one, they'll either have to use an Alt code, install a compose key program, or copy-paste the letter from somewhere else. All needlessly inconvenient when the task is simply writing the name of a country. There is no reason that it should be this complicated — do the Spanish go to the UN and demand everyone call them 'España'? No, because that would be ridiculous and unnecessary. But why exactly would they push for such a change? Is it maybe because they want to distance themselves from the bird that is named after them? That would be quite interesting, considering that they themselves (alongside other languages, including French, Russian, and Polish) denote it with a term which refers to India. But that would be ridiculous — I suppose the most likely alternative is that they want it to be spelt their way. Diacritics aside, it remains completely absurd. We could start referring to Germany as 'Deutschland'. After all, one may very well argue that it would better "represent and express the culture, civilisation, and values of the German nation". After all, Germany is the direct descendent of a term that was used by the Romans to refer to tribes east of the Rhine — it doesn't reflect that the country was founded in the unification of not only the Germani, but other "Germanic" peoples. French Allemagne and Finnish Saksa are similarly inaccurate, though not nearly as offensive as Polish Niemcy. So why doesn't the German government do exactly what the Turkish government has done and demand everyone refer to it as the Federal Republic of Deutschland? Firstly, they don't have the bird problem. That might not be the reason behind the Turkish government's decision, but if it is I highly doubt that they would admit it. Secondly, the German government has bigger priorities when it comes to international politics — I think that the Turkish government does too, but maybe they'd disagree. Priorities besides whatever they're doing in Syria, that is. But thirdly, the German government knows it would be unreasonable to push others around, to demand that everyone change how they do things because they feel it would better reflect their own national identity, culture, civilisation, and so on. Germany has been taught that it shouldn't do that. But obviously Turkey has not learnt that same lesson, since its government feels entitled to tell every other country to call it by a name that makes no sense in their languages. Turkey is also allowed to prosecute its citizens for discussing the Armenian Genocide, with pretty much no action taken against it and minimal condemnation from the 'International community'. AFEG64 (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Calm down, calm down, we get that you oppose this, no need to critique the entire Turkish system and talk about the Armenian genocide. Datawikiperson (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Bro what? Beshogur (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC) What does the "armenian genocide" have to do with our topic? How do you connect it to this? You are really crazy. But a piece of advice, if you continue your efforts to corner Türkiye through these "genocide" claims, it will not be good for you, yes I mean the western countries, because Türkiye and its army's patience is not infinite. Westerners, take care of your rabid dogs greece and armenia, otherwise the history books will write what will happen. 188.119.21.29 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a discussion forum Bogazicili (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose & one-year moratorium nothing new here to show that there has been any change in the WP:COMMONNAME in English RS (and my own searching shows it hasn't), which is the only thing that really matters here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:51, 15 May 2025 (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.

Abhimanyu7, did you assess consensus for a moratorium? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean @Abhiimanyu7 Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Hi there, I've given reason for closing move request and I estimate all of the participants user are n't support for this move proposal, and I've closed this proposal of move request on basis of the discussion and If I've maked any mistake, then plz talk me at on my usertalkpage. --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  03:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't overstepping any applicable process, but I've created [page notice], to expire 16 May 2026, to advise anyone creating a new discussion as to the existence of the moratorium. Largoplazo (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• We should directly revert IPs with 0 edits coming here. It's like 100 times that this happened. Beshogur (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)