Talk:Turkey

The article is too long

It's currently 13,585 words or 87kb. 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. 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)

Call for fresh moratorium

With four distinct discussions about changing the article's title having been engaged in during just a little over the past two months, it's time to establish a fresh moratorium. I propose two years this time. Nothing changes so abruptly that this needs to be revisited every year, and frequent, long-winded debates consisting of the same old arguments, when the conditions that would lead to a renaming having occurred, are disruptive to followers of this article and page, and to contributors to this talk page who have other things to talk about. The effect of a moratorium would be to allow any new discussion on the same topic to be immediately deleted (with a fair explanation) as a violation of consensus. Largoplazo (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You may not support changing "Turkey" to "Türkiye," but absolutely no one would object to changing it to "Republic of Turkey."Because that's his real name, and if it's written that way in other countries, why shouldn't it be written that way here too? Don't be biased. Ordinâryüs Üstâd (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about what I do or don't support. My purpose in initiating this discussion is exactly what I said: to prevent rehashing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over within ever-shorter periods of time. So for you to take it as an opportunity to do exactly what this proposal is intended to prevent—rehashing it yet again—amounts to a hijacking and is off-topic for this discussion. The one thing I'll thank you for is your diving right in and supplying a crystal clear example of why a moratorium is justified. Largoplazo (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I wrote this because of the answers you gave me in previous discussions. I support your moratorium decision. This debate should end, and the expression "Turkey" should be used as "Türkiye" or "Republic of Turkey". Ordinâryüs Üstâd (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"I support your moratorium on any further discussion of this, and, by the way, here's further discussion of it." Largoplazo (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a referendum should take place, and people should decide what should be used. Clearly, we won't get anywhere by arguing or postponing the argument.Even if your moratorium is justified, it will only postpone the process. Ordinâryüs Üstâd (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a referendum should take place Do you mean, you think 50 more referendums should be held in the next three weeks, one new one every time the previous one closes, until you get the outcome you want, in addition to the numerous referendums that have been held already? It's as though you didn't bother reading the premise behind the moratorium proposal. Largoplazo (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I am normally skeptical of long moratoriums, but this is clearly a case where it is necessary. Whatever small upward trend there exists in use does not justify revisiting this in the near-future. My only worry is if something abrupt does happen: unlikely as it may be. Uness232 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if something "abrupt" happens, there's no requirement that Wikipedia jump right on top of it, so it will be OK. And abrupt would be really unlikely given that an assessment of what a country is called isn't based on usage over the course of just one day or one week or one month. Largoplazo (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Mr. Largo, I don't see the debates we constantly have as referendums. Because you are constantly against the changes to the title of this page. I think these debates we have are unnecessary. Ordinâryüs Üstâd (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair points. Uness232 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with two year moratorium. Also, the suggestion to change to "Republic of Turkey" violates both WP:COMMONNAME and standard practice. We have Sweden, not "Kingdom of Sweden"; we have Norway, not "Kingdom of Norway"; we have Denmark, not "Kingdom of Denmark; we have Finland, not "Republic of Finland", and so on. Jeppiz (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  So why do we say the Republic of Ireland or the Republic of Korea?As you know, there are dozens of countries whose official names are used on Wikipedia. What is the reason for this distinction? Ordinâryüs Üstâd (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Korea and Ireland have to do with WP:CRITERIA, specifically WP:PRECISE. Korea refers to the peninsula and each of the two countries that co-locate on it. Ireland refers to an island which is divided between the Republic of Ireland (which often simply calls itself Ireland) and Northern Ireland. The policy states "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The first eleven words are operative for Korea and Ireland, as they, in the absence of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would suggest that a clarifying word or two should be added to make the title unambiguous. The last eight words are important for our current case; per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:QUALIFIER ("If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.") as the article for the bird is called Turkey (bird), the country (as the primary topic) is favored to be located at the more WP:CONCISE title of Turkey.

  I also see you thanked me for saying "Fair points." below Largoplazo's comment. That was to Largoplazo: I'm sorry to say I don't find much actionable about your proposal and I don't find the way you are discussing this very productive. Uness232 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Ordinâryüs Üstâd: You asked about Ireland before and were given an explanation by @Black Kite. Did you bother to read it? You could read WP:COMMONNAME before continuing your repeated attempts to get your own way. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've responded enough to have figured out that OU has no intention of allowing this discussion about the moratorium to be just a discussion about the moratorium and is intent on hijacking it to be yet the five thousand seven hundred and third-second discussion about renaming the article. For that reason, I won't be responding to OU further. Please, everyone, join me in not facilitating OU's efforts to drown out what this discussion is for. Largoplazo (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, I don't even care. Do whatever you want. Do whatever you wish. Who cares about a mistake on an ordinary page?Everyone knows Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Ordinâryüs Üstâd (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Surely others could weigh in on this? Largoplazo (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Support the moratorium. Four discussions in two months is excessive rehashing, and nothing suggests usage has shifted abruptly enough to justify revisiting this so often. Two years sounds reasonable. Huyrutan (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Support as well, for the same reasons. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support one-year moratorium, neutral on two-year I think it's fairly clear that one is needed although two years is long indeed. If one year passes and nothing significant has changed, we can reevaluate and put another moratorium if needed. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 21:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  I apologize I am not familiar with the discussion history, but regardless two years seems too long a discussion moratorium. I came here because I have suddenly seen "Türkiye" everywhere and wondered what happened. News media, world cup, Duolingo, you name it. I checked Google Trends and it seems like a major shift is happening. If discussion has been at loggerheads here and gone nowhere, taking a break seems sensible, but certainly not for so long when the common usage is in major flux. Oppose for two years, support for some short period. -kslays (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Disagree on moratorium.

The fact that this is an active and controversial subject means that -- were a moratorium implemented -- we could end up artificially delaying a change that is becoming (more and more) clearly represented in RS. Angilas (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It suffices to survey the situation every so often. There's no single threshold that can be discerned in a single instant that would make the consensus suddenly sway dramatically in the other direction and, even if there were one, there's no urgency, Wikipedia doesn't need to reflect it at whatever artificial instant someone thinks a precisely defined was reached. It can wait. Weigh this against all the people who raise this without such an event having transpired, without even having claimed that there has been one, over and over and over and over and over and over and over every 15 minutes .... It's disruptive, that's the motivation for a moratorium. Largoplazo (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, don't get me wrong, though I disagree with the idea of a moratorium, I do at least understand the motivation

But here's how I look at it...

I was editing a page on WP:FRINGE-ipedia when I came across a mention of the country of "Turkey", and was completely under the impression it had changed to Türkiye. Before I made what I thought was a correct edit, I hovered over the link and was surprised to see the page name hadn't yet changed, so I sashayed over here to see what was going on in the Talk page.

The fact is that if other people take a similarly curious look here over the next year and reply to ongoing discussions or start topics, the sheer abundance of added interest from editors across the platform could, in itself, sway holdouts and alter consensus.

The resultant volume may seem stochastically disruptive to those navigating the Talk page, but sometimes change emerges from innocent stochastic "disruption".

And I'm guessing in most cases, the abundance of discussion about this is coming from a place of innocent curiosity and not bludgeoning. Angilas (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Consensus isn't based on the number of people who are interested. We've already had dozens of people whose opinions in favor of change amount to "it's official" or "Google Maps" is using it, and those will continue not to be the relevant criteria used by Wikipedia. And, as I noted, Wikipedia has time: it doesn't have to change the title on the very day, or even in the very month, consensus might have changed in favor of it. Largoplazo (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose I strongly oppose a two year moratorium. The name is starting to change in public discourse and per WP:COMMONNAME we will correctly change the name when it's time. That time might come quickly or it might come after a much longer period of time. A discussion that happens here fairly often doesn't hurt anything, and it's perfectly fine to have a very well reasoned note at the top of this page to explain why. A moratorium is not going to make people who seek the change suddenly support it - it only reinforces the view that we are not open to consensus or sources but simply ram our own views through and protect pages in a biased status. (I'm not saying the current naming is biased, I'm just saying that a moratorium is not the right answer.). Moratoriums should always be for the shortest possible period of time to deal with some kind of terrible and emotional argument that is unproductive. To "allow any new discussion on the same topic to be immediately deleted" is a total violation of the spirit of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The arguments that come in for the name change are largely terrible and emotional and unproductive: "Oh my god, you people are so repugnant, how dare you show such disrespect to our country that you don't allow us to dictate to you what your name for us is, and how dare you follow Wikipedia's guidelines on the matter." As for doesn't hurt anything, those who find it highly disruptive to those who watch the article by endless discussion of the exact same thing and wind up tuning out the page altogether so that other topics worthy of discussion are overlooked is harmful. As for That time might come quickly or it might come after a much longer period of time: There isn't ever going to be a single triggering instant such that Wikipedia must constantly track the situation and jump right on top of it. WP:THEREISNORUSH.

In addition, the duration of such discussions must be taken into account. If a discussion drags on over the course of months, then a materially longer gap is needed during which such discussions aren't taking place to enable a reasonable period of peace before it comes time to reevaluate the situation and to allow other topics to receive due attention. Largoplazo (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If no moratorium is applied, I'd totally love to see @Jimbo Wales: handling every single repeated request on this talk page (or other talk page with similar issues) from people asking for the same thing without reading the multiple messages asking people to stop asking for the same thing. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 17:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd been thinking of saying the same thing but I didn't want to be rude. 😉 I was surprised to see him chime in here (I guess I'm talking about him in front of him) when he seems rarely, at least in recent months, to participate in article discussions at this level, and then comes and gives an impression of being unfamiliar with anything that's ever been said here or elsewhere, by the troops in the trenches, as it were, in discussions about the merits of and justification for moratoriums. Largoplazo (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about my level of knowledge on the issue. But in any event, that hardly seems relevant. We know broadly, across the entire project, that moratoriums are generally a bad thing that should be applied only sparingly - they are deeply anti-wiki in philosophy. Long moratoriums are especially bad because (among other things, which I'm happy to go into if you are interested) they will tend to cause us to "dig in" when the facts of reality have changed. What should be done, and what I propose here, is to attempt other solutions first. In order to facilitate a better discussion of alternative proposals I will start a new section on this page. Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't say this to deny that there's some value in what you're saying anyway, but who's "we"? Your remarks come across like ones that begin with "Everyone knows ..." in a debate with others who disagree and, therefore, by their very existence trivially negate the claim that "everyone knows ...".

I disagree that digging in is being done. After the expiration of a moratorium, no one needs to dig in because there's no longer a moratorium, it's indeed time for a fresh look. And, as I've already stated, there is no single moment when "the facts of reality have changed" that we urgently need to reflect the shift that very instant.

That aside, I appreciate your suggestion regarding the edit notice and seeing how that goes. Largoplazo (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing that I know to be anti-wiki philosophy is actions taken against consensus. Suppose we can have newcomers launching a new move request every month (perhaps because none of them reads the edit notice). Eventually those who have been raising the same policy- and guidelines-based objections in response to each request get worn out and start ignoring the latest discussions. Finally, someone initiates a request, gets no response, and assumes they can go ahead with the move because they interpret the lack of voiced opposition as consensus. That would be a fake consensus. It's in Wikipedia's interest to avoid that. How best to prevent that? By not letting the concerns of newcomers completely override the concerns of veteran users. It doesn't have to be either/or. Largoplazo (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The Hindi-language version sound really really weird

The Hindi language version of the turkish wikipedia page "sounds really weird", this is hard to explain in the english language, but the descriptive sentences put in the Hindi language page sound like the following in english.

A does B. It has C. It has D. It has E. It has F.

My apologies for the lack of cohesion in what I am saying, I am a native Hindi speaker – I have never learnt to critique it's grammar or the style of Hindi. However, when it comes to style of writing the page reads to be very bland ~2026-37238-53 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37238-53: Please raise this concern at hi:वार्ता:तुर्की (the hiwiki talk page), not here. This talk page is only for the English version the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you edit the Hindi Wikipedia article on Turkey? Loc863 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it was last edited by a bot on January 25, 2026. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Renaming matter

rename everything from turkey to türkiye, as of the 2022 UN change agreement. ~2026-38268-35 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No. This is been discussed many times. See earlier discussions on this page and in its archives to see what arguments have been made and failed to carry a consensus, including the argument about the UN. Largoplazo (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Wow, this is an incredibly hot debate.

I really didn't think this one would be so controversial, and it looks like they're trying to put a moratorium on even discussing it for a time... since so many topics are advocating for it. Honestly, I probably would've interpreted the abundance of calls to change the name as more evidence to abandon the status quo than to try and maintain it.

I'm personally not sure why it's so controversial. Türkiye is becoming more and more represented in RS, and yeah the umlaut is a bit unusual for English, but English already uses diereses and umlauts in a few foreign loanwords (e.g. naïve and doppelgänger). Angilas (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

For reasons of meaning and logic, the title of the article should be changed.

As everyone knows, the word "Turkey" has two meanings in English. One is a country located in both Europe and Asia, and the other is a winged animal. I think the UN resolution should be taken into consideration. Mr.Largor (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but arguments for a title changed based on the premise that readers are so incredibly stupid that they might mistake an article on a country for one on a bird aren't going to get you anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not the point of confusion; it is in UN agreement of 2022 that the official name is Türkiye. The English language has an incredible lot of awkward mistranslations from native languages across the globe. An entire people's nation is being misnamed by the dominant lingua franca in the world. If we want our world to become more proficient in English, I suggest we also educate ourselves on the diversity that are the cultures of people. Next to the uneducated part is it very dismissing to people originating from, for example Türkiye, for you to state that. ~2026-40907-15 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

People perpetually talk about this as though English is the only language in the world in which the names of other countries aren't the same as the names used in those countries. Look up the Turkish names for Greece, Albania, Morocco, India, and Finland. But for some reason it's only the world's anglophones who have no respect for the diversity of the world's cultures when they use their own names for places. Largoplazo (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

They also routinely misrepresent the UN agreement. All the UN agreed to was to use 'Türkiye' in their own documents and communications. They at no point suggested that they were attempting to impose this anywhere else: they have no mandate to do such things, and nor do they claim to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. One would expect any international organization, in its working languages, to identify its members using the names by which they identify themselves to the organization (with some modifications, I guess, such as "Chinese Taipei" in the Olympics). That doesn't make it official outside of the scope of the organization's authority. If you look at the UN's list of members at https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states, they include "Lao People's Democratic Republic", not Laos. I don't know why Laos doesn't want the UN to identify it as "Laos", but that's the way it is, and the UN seems to avoid "Laos" in recent publications. Nevertheless, English speakers pretty universally still call it "Laos", a situation that seems unlikely to change, so that's what the Wikipedia article is called. Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

typo

Although the phrase "Republic of Turkey" was changed to "Republic of Türkiye" in 2022, the term "Turkey" is still being used. www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states/turkiye MehmetEminBilgiç (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Not a typo. Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Per Policy, the English-language Wikipedia uses commonly-used terms for article titles, and for the content therein. See e.g. our article on Mexico, which refers to it as such, rather than 'Estados Unidos Mexicanos', or 'United Mexican States'. If and when 'Türkiye' becomes more widely used in English-language sources, we can consider revising the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Alternative to moratorium

Before resorting to the extreme and anti-wiki option of a moratorium (and I'm happy to elucidate reasons why moratoriums are considered generally bad and to be avoided where possible across the entire project if that's helpful) we should evaluate the current situation that meets a good faith newbie editor who thinks we should update Wikipedia to the official name of the country. Right now, when I start a new section or edit the page, I see a really mean message with zero explanatory value: "Attention editors: Do not request that the title of this page be changed from Turkey to Türkiye". It adds only "Per previous discussions, please see Talk:Turkey/FAQ", which once you click it does offer a pretty good explanation which I think could be improved.

What I propose (and may edit myself later this week but I'd like help in improving it even more first) is that the message be more friendly and right up front explain the issue in terms that will make sense to that newbie. For example, I would avoid the term 'exonym' in this message on the grounds that most people don't know that word.

"Welcome! If you are coming to request that the title of this page be changed from Turkey to Türkiye, we appreciate your interest but would like to explain something first. Wikipedia has a policy of using the common name for places in each language. Examples: Germany for Deutschland, Turkey for Türkiye. Similarly, Turkish language Wikipedia uses "Almanya" for Germany/Deutschland. It is worth noting that the BBC, AP, New York Times, and essentially all English language media style guides still recommend the use of Turkey. On this talk page, people are pretty tired of debating it, so the best thing to update us on is if you see any major shift in real world usage in those types of sources. Otherwise, we'd mostly like to welcome you and thank you for your interest and invite you to help us improve articles about Turkey/Türkiye. Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey is a great place to get started."

That kind of message will do a lot more good for the project than a hostile page notice and a moratorium that makes people feel excluded. Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales That's not a particularly hostile page notice IMO. It's the type of notice that gets applied in cases where we are getting multiple identical requests from people to do the same thing which we aren't going to do, and I can think of quite a few pages where there are similar notices. Having said that, why not? I have changed the edit notice to your wording. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's fantastic thank you! A good experiment. Now, in terms of it not being particularly hostile, sure, and if you know of other examples that might be improved please do let me know because I'm interested in how to make things more welcoming for good faith editors coming to us for the first time. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Talk:Gulf of Mexico is another one that springs to mind, although that one is of course not a language issue. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'll look into that one. Although there is some sentiment on this talk page that people coming are ideologically motivated, I don't really see a lot of that. I see more people coming in good faith thinking that the name has changed and excited to see an opportunity to update something in Wikipedia.

  Over there, I suspect the "recruitment pool" is different if the people are coming because they are culture warriors. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this is a fantastic idea. I came to the Wikipedia page with the sole purpose of investigating the name "Türkiye" because, as of 2026 but not before, I have seen it used widely in media and random personal conversation. That "Attention editors: Do not request that the title of this page be changed from Turkey to Türkiye" at the top would have answered my question clearly, as I belive it would for many others. kslays (talk • contribs) 07:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Informational point on naming

It's probably worth noting that while major news sources such as AP, BBC, CNN, etc. are all still using "Turkey" there has been a significant shift in travel guides:

• Rough Guides Türkiye
• Lonely Planet Türkiye
• Insight Guides Türkiye
• Türkiye Travel Guide - independently published by George M. Ripp

This is significantly different from the classic case of Germany - all these brands are using "Germany" not Deutschland. I presume this is because the campaign of the Turkish government to ask people to use Türkiye is starting to succeed. I don't think the Germans are campaigning for people to use Deutschland.

To note: I don't think this shift justifies a name change here, but it probably does signify a trend that will likely take hold in the long run. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

At least two are inconsistent: Lonely Planet Türkiye on the book, Lonely Planet Turkiye on its web site; Rough Guide Türkiye on the book, Rough Guide Turkey on its web site. (Nice plug for Amazon.) Bazza 7 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Primary topic: The country or the bird?

The primary topic for "Turkey" in American English is a bird. Why not have "Turkey (bird)" be the main article and rename this one to Turkey (country)? ~2026-40999-08 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Does it help answer your question if I point out that this is worldwide English Wikipedia, not American English Wikipedia? Largoplazo (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is written in American English, and Wikipedia is an American website ~2026-40999-08 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this isn't a US-centric website. Largoplazo (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the article should at least try to not create confusion for the country with the largest English-speaking population. I feel like a reasonable course of action could be having this be the default redirect for "Turkey", with the article itself being titled "Turkey (country) ~2026-40999-08 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Your argument notwithstanding, Wikipedia simply isn't a nationalistic organization that gives special favor to the American point of view. As for confusion, right at the top of the article a reader sees This article is about the country. For the bird, see Turkey (bird). No confusion. Largoplazo (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why was this closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-40999-08 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: to request a page move, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Because the consensus is explained in the FAQ. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Topic primacy isn't clear, see https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=turkey+food%2C+turkey+country&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Why not label to be equal to both topics?

I've unboxed this because it didn't seem to be working anyway, and because this thread hadn't anywhere near reached the length and the level of unproductiveness that normally justify boxing.

My final response to the requester: It was fine for you to test the waters in an ordinary thread but, as Tbhotch said, if you still believe the page should be moved, and since, as you can see, it's going to be a controversial request, you should follow the procedures at WP:Requested moves to make a formal request, as nothing further can be achieved by continuing in this thread. Before doing that, however, consider that, as indicated by LaundryPizza03, this discussion has been held before and the way the articles are named now is the outcome. That doesn't mean the question can't be raised anew, but, in deciding whether it's worth your time, you ought to take into account what's been said previously and how the current state of affairs was reached. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Pageviews Turkey got an average of 11,766 page views per day in the last year. Turkey (bird) got 1,221 per day. Even if we make an assumption that everyone viewing the bird article came here first, that still leaves this article's views at more than eight times that of the bird, so it is clearly the primary topic. This is probably a good illustration of the fact that whilst the USA is the largest English-speaking country in the world, that does not necessarily map to readers of the English Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• there's also the issue of why people look at Wikipedia articles. Presumably a great deal of it is to find out about things they don't already know. And given the relative complexity of the two, I'd have to suggest that the country is going to attract more readers for that purpose than the bird. There's really only so much you can usefully say about a large domesticated avian, bred as food. A large country, with a long and complex history, and with extensive archaeological artefacts dating back to the Neolithic, is inherently going to have more written about it, about many, many topics. Hence the difference in readership between the two. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think we were being trolled here. It seems implausible that anybody could genuinely think that a nation of 86 million people was not the primary topic for its own name. The frivolous argument was advanced crassly and I did wonder whether the American exceptionalism used in place of any actual argument was intended to wind people up. This is the English language Wikipedia not the American English Wikipedia and all English variants need to coexist within it, which they do surprisingly well except when somebody tries to make trouble. Alternatively, I wondered whether this was a way to sneak a rename to "Türkiye" in through the back door. When the TA switched to using another TA I pretty much lost all patience with them and warned them for sockpuppetry.

Obviously, I'm not going to roll this up again. If people think that this has exposed anything worth discussing then go ahead. That can happen even when a thread starts off on an invalid basis. Please, just don't waste too much of your time on an OP who probably wasn't serious in the first place. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: Thread renamed from '"Turkey" is a bird' to 'Primary topic: The country or the bird?' to be less inflammatory and to reflect the actual discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, OP here, you got me. I think in general Wikipedia isn't reactive enough, (ironic, given that wiki means fast), such as not renaming this article Turkiye as per the country's wishes or not having "Gulf of America" in the header for the Gulf of Mexico. I didn't genuinely believe any of the arguments that I previously offered, if you couldn't tell. ~2026-41183-74 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The reason it's still called the Gulf of Mexico is because almost no one calls it the "Gulf of America" except Trump, people/groups who support Trump, and US federal executive agencies (because they have to). In fact, the ratio of "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" is increasing over time.

As an aside, Google Maps handles the dispute the same way as the Sea of Japan/East Sea naming dispute: it displays "Gulf of Mexico" to users in Mexico, "Gulf of America" to users in the US, and "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" everywhere else. We obviously can't do that. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course I'm not suggesting that wikipedia should be different in different regions, I just think that a different name being used by the federal government constitutes something worth mentioning in the header, especially as the controversy is ongoing.

I realize that this conversation should probably be held on that article ~2026-41254-10 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)