Talk:Turkey

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

The article is too long

[edit]

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)[reply]

Trimming is certainly a good thing, but you should ensure first that the child articles are in an appropriate shape. E.g., Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey is much better writen than History_of_Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey; the latter trails off into a mere timeline (but then child-child article History of the Republic of Turkey is looks better). This is relevant because History of Turkey in its entirety is the child article of Turkey#History. So anyonw jumping straight from the section Turkey#History to History of Turkey will have – as of now – a worse reading experience at the bottom of the latter than at the bottom of the Turkey#History. I only mention this because I have seen cases trimming of main articles without brushing up the child articles. I think @CMD can be of much help in the challenge of how to create best structure and best content in article hierarchies. –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where's the Emblem of Turkey?! 202.138.239.24 (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many times. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Citation style

[edit]

@Frietjes and Quebec99: please do not change the citation style of the article without consensus.

The article uses short inline citation format for lengthy sources that require page numbers or entry names, such as books and long reports with {{cite book}} and {{cite report}} templates. Full inline citations for everything else, such as newspaper articles. {{harvc}} for book chapters.

The changes you have made make the citations look ugly and distracting when page numbers and entry names are added, such as there were Turkic/Turkish migrations, intermarriages, and conversions into Islam.[34]: 71–73, 225 [13]: 36–38 and Turkestan, also meaning the "land of the Turks", was used for a historic region in Central Asia.[30]: Turkestan, Central Asia, Kazakhstan

I'd prefer few duplicate references rather than wholesale change of citation format of the article. Most WP:FA articles I've seen also use short inline citations. For more information, see WP:CITEVARNO Bogazicili (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @Lfstevens: see above Bogazicili (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A few points:
- Maybe instead of unilaterally reverting the work of several editors, discuss your views here first? Especially when your reasons are (apparently) aesthetic.
- Short inline citations are fine, but in this case they massively increased the ref section for no benefit. They also increase the size and complexity of the page. The pattern of putting book refs inline while keeping chapters in the sources wasn't even consistently followed.
- Sfn is a much more economical way to do short citations (that are not lists of citations within a single ref and don't include additional text).
- I also corrected a bunch of cases in which the same ref was consecutively cited in a single paragraph, further bloating the page and distracting users.
- And yes, I realize that some errors escaped my notice, but was correcting them as I noticed them and of course had many additional improvements in my now blocked pipeline.
- I don't edit war, so I await the views of other editors. Lfstevens (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lfstevens. Thanks for trying to improve the article. My concerns:
  • Actually, you are the one who made a unilateral change with this edit [3]. See WP:CITEVARNO and WP:CITEVAR. I had discussed citation style of this article last year: Talk:Turkey/Archive_40#Citation_format_for_books_and_long_reports and Talk:Turkey/Archive_42#Citation_style_change_-_individually_authored_chapters. When no one objected, I changed the citation style
  • You are right the citation style is not consistent at the moment. I have been sidetracked, but I'm getting the article ready for GA and then FA nomination. It'll be consistent before the FA nomination.
  • I disagree that ref section was "massively increased". We have 515 references in addition to a Sources section. See other WP:GA and WP:FA articles such as Climate change and Human history. Climate change has 459 references and a much more extensive Sources section. Climate change is FA, meaning it has been vetted by the community. Human history also uses harvnb.
  • Especially when your reasons are (apparently) aesthetic My reasons are not only aesthetics.
    • Lengthy sourcing in text may also confuse readers, and I don't think it is user friendly. What is "bloating the page and distracting users" is this type of sourcing: there were Turkic/Turkish migrations, intermarriages, and conversions into Islam.[34]: 71–73, 225 [13]: 36–38 and Turkestan, also meaning the "land of the Turks", was used for a historic region in Central Asia.[30]: Turkestan, Central Asia, Kazakhstan
    • I am also the editor trying to improve the article to WP:GA and WP:FA. I find the format you switched to, with separate {{rp}}s too cumbersome.
  • I disagree about sfn, it seems too cumbersome for bundled references. That was my experience in Byzantine Empire
  • In short, I do not see any rationale for your change based on WP:PAGs. If you have any legitimate technical concerns, perhaps you can get input from community at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding.
- Kudos for working to make this FA/GA.
- I checked Talk before working, and saw no mention. Of course, I didn't check the archives. Maybe make the point at the top of Talk.
- Conveying the same info in less space is a good idea, regardless of article size. Nothing wrong with lots of (appropriate) sources. But better to use that for chapters and put others inline.
- Checked Climate Change and Human History. Both use rp. CC uses sfn, too. Both appear in countless other articles.
- I earlier noted that sfn does not work in bundled refs and is not appropriate there. It is appropriate for unbundled references that do not include additional test.
- You did not address the consecutive duplicate citations I mentioned.
- Take your point on the long text in the rp. I just did it for consistency.
In any event, this would have been better handled in Talk than via a revert. I leave this in your capable hands. Good luck. Lfstevens (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfstevens: thanks! Few points I forgot to mention:
  • The switch to a consistent citation style is taking longer, because I want to check older sources for Text–source integrity. Doing bulk edits and changing the citation style would take less time, but sources with the "wrong" format make it easier for me to identify which sources need to be checked. Some of older sources may also be replaced with better sources.
  • I didn't want to use sfn, because I wanted to use quotes with harvnb. See: Template:Sfn#Adding_additional_comments_or_quotes I think quotes are important for quick verification and article stability, especially in articles in contentious topic areas such as this article. I was worried using both harvnb and sfn would be seen inconsistent.
  • However, following the discussion here: User_talk:Gog_the_Mild#Quick_question_about_Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria, I now don't mind using sfn for most short inline references, i.e.: Short inline citations with quotes, multi references, in explanatory footnote should be in harvnb. For all other short inline citations, sfn should be used.
  • Are you interested in switching most harvnb cites to sfn as outlined above? Do you have a script for it? This would fix most duplicate short inline references issues.
  • You are right, there is no notification in the talk page about the citation style. After we clarify if you want to switch to sfn for most short inline ones, I can add a citation style note. I understand that you did some work, and it got reverted and that's annoying. Sorry about that. Bogazicili (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out. Don't want to get reverted again. Good luck. Lfstevens (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll stick to harvnb. There is lots of precedent in English-language Wikipedia with GA or FA high-level articles such as Climate change, Human history, History, Mind etc.
I'll add a note about the citation style in the article. Bogazicili (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone doesn't mind, I'd also like a consistent format for merged references. All references in the lead should be merged. For the body, 4 or more references should be merged per WP:OVERCITE. I'd prefer {{bulleted list}} inside <ref></ref> tags, rather than {{multiref}} as the bullet points make differentiating different sources easier. Bogazicili (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note about the citation style in the article as discussed above: Talk:Turkey/Citation style Bogazicili (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Religion

[edit]

I noticed that the religion information in the infobox is not present in this article. Is there a reason for this? I only ask since I've seen most other countries' infoboxes contain religion information. Thanks! —PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC) PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because we do not have census information, and surveys vary. It's better discussed in the body. Bogazicili (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2025

[edit]

Latest Gini value is from 2022. Article is 2021.

Change Gini to 2022 value of 44.5 ^ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=TR Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2025

[edit]

Emblem of Turkey.svg Giray 3532 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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.. Mellk (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That emblem is unofficial and its removal from the infobox was probably discussed before Nurken (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dictatorship

[edit]

(Sorry for bad English) Hi, I live in Turkey. Goverment is described as dictatorship in North Korea, Russia, Belarus, Venezuela vs. pages. In my opinion, Goverment of Turkey is also a dictatorship (see Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu, Arrest and Imprisonment of Esila Ayık, 2025 Turkish protests, tr:Arrest of Ümit Özdağ) --Yılmaztalk 15:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (In this case, reliable sources that describe Turkey as a dictatorship.) Day Creature (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect change

[edit]

Persian Lad, why did you change the redirect in Republic of Turkey from Turkey to History of the Republic of Turkey [4]? It doesn't make any sense to me. Republic of Turkey is an alternate form of the official name of Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Bogazicili: Because Turkey can lead to a disambiguate page. When they mean Republic of Turkey, they mean the entity that came into being in the First World War. See Islamic Republic of Iran as an analogue.--Persian Lad (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Turkey ever becomes a disambiguation page, we'll deal with it then. Right now, it isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bogazicili, okay change it back. But I must insist that Turkish Republic should redirect to History of the Republic of Turkey.--Persian Lad (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Republic is a disambiguation page. Bogazicili (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to redirect to a page about only one aspect of the country, why would it redirect to a page on the country's history as opposed to, for example, its government, its culture, or its geography? Since the phrase "Turkish Republic" is general, and there are two general articles that the phrase can refer to, the current disambiguation page is appropriate.
Just so you know, "I must insist" never persuades anyone of anything but gives the impression that the writer feels that it should. Largoplazo (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Dawlat-at-Turkiyya" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Dawlat-at-Turkiyya has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 19 § Dawlat-at-Turkiyya until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]