Talk:Turkey: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

By /

Line 334: Line 334:

::::Nah, “ethnic” would needed before Turks. Otherwise, “most are Turkish citizens, while Kurds are the largest ethnic minority”, while not what was meant, would be a valid interpretation. I say that, though, before taking into account FFF’s suggested additional modification, above, which does take care of the repetition altogether and unambiguously. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 02:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

::::Nah, “ethnic” would needed before Turks. Otherwise, “most are Turkish citizens, while Kurds are the largest ethnic minority”, while not what was meant, would be a valid interpretation. I say that, though, before taking into account FFF’s suggested additional modification, above, which does take care of the repetition altogether and unambiguously. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 02:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::Point taken, though I am skeptical that such a misunderstanding would happen, context clues and all. I still agree that FFF’s wording is superior to mine. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 14:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::Point taken, though I am skeptical that such a misunderstanding would happen, context clues and all. I still agree that FFF’s wording is superior to mine. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 14:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

:::Those weren’t the only issues in the discussion or in the journal article, but I added some quotes below. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

:::Those weren’t the only issues in the discussion or in the journal article, but I added some quotes . [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Turkey 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.
This article appeared on Wikipedia’s Main Page as Today’s featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
December 20, 2011 Featured article review Demoted
August 11, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
September 15, 2014 Peer review Reviewed
March 6, 2015 Featured article candidate Not promoted
May 27, 2017 Peer review Not reviewed
May 20, 2019 Good article reassessment Delisted
May 8, 2020 Peer review Reviewed
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

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]

@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]
Never mind about the {{bulleted list}} due to WP:PEIS. See: [4].
For merged references, we should simply use * Bogazicili (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(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]
@Day Creature: is “authoritarianism” okay? —B. Yılmaztalk 16:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikiyılmaz:, the question is not whether you or I or Day Creature think that Turkey (not its current government) should be described as a dictatorship, but whether reliable sources do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dawlat at-Turk which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been following recent events, there is no democracy here. Incidents such as the government silencing the opposition demonstrate that democracy is not functioning in that country. Organizations like Freedom House classifying Turkey as “not free” serves as evidence of this (even The Washington Post considers it authoritarian). In light of this information, I propose changing it to “Unitary presidential republic under an authoritarian government.”
[5] Jules Winnfield (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, a presidential republic can be authoritarian or democratic. It does not make sense to include the level of democracy in the infobox (see also MOS:IBP). This should be explained in the body. Otherwise, would you write “unitary presidential republic under a democratic government”? Not to mention that sources often differ on this (EIU still calls it a hybrid regime, for example). Mellk (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the basis for saying this in Egypt? As I understand it, the article on this country defines the form of government as a unitary presidential republic under authoritarian rule. @Mellk Jules Winnfield (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not agree with this formulation (particularly the “under” part, which reads like WP:OR, but somehow this spread and is still an issue). However, this is something that needs to be raised on the talk page of that article. In some cases it may be fine to write “dictatorship” instead for obvious examples. Mellk (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the people there aren’t, in the aggregate, applying the same reasoning. The only way to get consistency across articles on this is to have a discussion and perhaps initiate a request for comment at an appropriate higher-level place. But I agree that, unless we start labeling, say, France as a “Unitary semi-presidential republic with a relatively unrepressive government”, the purpose of this field isn’t to display a metric of the level of democracy prevailing in the country. Largoplazo (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we probably need a RfC for this. Mellk (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we need to consult the RFC for this matter. If there is a request form, it can be requested. Jules Winnfield (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Mellk (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is no less dictator than Erdogan. Both are using their powers given by law (presidential system). If we going to label USA and Federal two party authoritarian presidential republic, alright. Beshogur (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be argued that there is a high level of personalism (see for example this), but this is something for the body. Mellk (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The full analogy would be calling US authoritarian, citing Chinese government-funded advocacy groups Bogazicili (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh here we go again. This had been discussed dozens of times before. “authoritarian” isn’t a form of government. Beshogur (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom House is an advocacy organization funded by the US government.
It’s definitely not a high quality source in line with WP:Scholarship Bogazicili (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When will you stop being biased? If Trump had been authoritarian, Joe Biden wouldn’t have won the previous elections; the elections would have been manipulated. So, how many governments have changed in Turkey in the last 20 years? @Beshogur Jules Winnfield (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on your sourcing.
Please see WP:Forum Bogazicili (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to ignore sources like v-dem too, or do you consider them to be affiliated with the government as well? @Bogazicili Jules Winnfield (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not about ignoring sources.
Infobox is not for things where sources contradict each other since there is no space to get into details. And you can’t pick one source over another per WP:NPOV. Things like v-dem can be added into the body of the article.
For example, Singapore is a good article. It’s in the same category with Turkey according to V-dem and Our World in Data. However, Singopore’s infobox simply says “Unitary parliamentary republic” Bogazicili (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili: if Freedom House were neutral, would Turkey be democratic? —B. Yılmaztalk 20:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is grotesquely ridiculous to include the “religion of the majority population” in the first paragraph of the lead. This is unprecedented in any other country article on Wikipedia.

Nowhere in the lead sections of articles on countries such as Poland, Costa Rica, Egypt, Thailand, France, Algeria, Uruguay, India, Zimbabwe, Germany, Japan, Albania, Australia, Israel, China, or Brazil is the dominant religion mentioned. Singling out Turkey in this way gives the misleading impression that religion is its defining characteristic, which is neither neutral nor consistent with established Wikipedia practice.

Let me spell out the subtext I see between the lines. It reads as if the article is whispering to the audience: “Oh, you want to learn about Turkey? Well, before anything else, let us remind you — it’s Muslim. I know, right? 😬 Better keep that in mind.” ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TW: This comment includes sarcastic elements to emphasize its point, which could be perceived as hateful. However, this is not the intent. ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Of the countries you list, I would say that religion is a greater factor in the lives of people in at least Poland, India and Israel than in Turkey. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the countries I listed… Well, I haven’t checked all 205 countries in the List of sovereign states, but as far as I have checked, I haven’t come across a SINGLE example in the first paragraph that contains such a statement. ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was added here in February last year by Bogazicili. Perhaps they’s like to comment? DeCausa (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is completely irrelevant to the first paragraph of the lead and must be removed. It is an unparalleled statement across Wikipedia country articles. ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, may be this article has got it right and the others should be updated! I’m not sure where your tone of outrage is coming from. It seems misplaced. DeCausa (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Including the ones with “brown people”? If so, then what’s the basis for your interpretation of its appearance here? Largoplazo (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I began writing this objection, the connotations in my mind evolved by the time I finished. The contradiction you pointed out is noteworthy. Initially, when I drafted the title, I hadn’t realized that this was an unprecedented situation across all 205 country articles and had interpreted it as an orientalist bias. Later, however, my objection centered on its unmatched position within Wikipedia. ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most country articles seem to have the population number in the first paragraph, that’s why I put the rest there, since it’s a more coherent summary of Turkey#Demographics Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the countries that you listed like India and Brazil have religion in their infobox.
This article does not have religion in infobox, because Turkish census doesn’t ask it and surveys vary. Instead it’s in the first paragraph.
I’d argue religion is WP:DUE in the lead, because it’s in a WP:Tertiary source.
Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Turkey entry, p. 1576:

Religion in Turkey is tempered by the secular state, but the vast majority of Turks are nominally Muslim.

That portion in the lead, Turkey is home to over 85 million people; most are ethnic Turks, while ethnic Kurds are the largest ethnic minority. Officially a secular state, Turkey has a Muslim-majority population., is also summarizing Turkey#Demographics section per WP:Lead
I also find your entire framing “Religion of These Brown People” more in line with the Euro-centric or Western-centric bias in English-language Wikipedia.
Terms such as White Turks and Black Turks may have very different meanings in Turkey.
I’d suggest you to stick to sources while debating content in Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics areas. Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. A considerable number of country articles do not present religious demographics in either the lead section or the infobox. Including such data in the infobox of this article is all fine, as it is a fairly common practice across country articles in Wikipedia unlike the current situation.
I also don’t see the relevance of your point about the connection between the presence of religious demographic data and its method of acquisition (census, survey, or estimation). Do all the other infobox entries rely solely on official census data? If not, why expect it only here?
However, placing religion in the very first sentence constitutes undue weight, since it is LITERALLY UNPRECEDENTED.
No need for that quote here, since no one is disputing the factual accuracy of the statement. The objection lies in its disproportionate emphasis by positioning it in the opening paragraph, which—again— has no precedent.
And yes, including such a statement in the first paragraph of the country’s Wikipedia page reinforces/serves a Western-centric bias by reducing Turkey—and the East more broadly—to stereotypes shaped by outsiders. For centuries, Western scholars, writers, and media have portrayed Eastern societies as exotic or mysterious, but more often as overly religious, spiritual, irrational, religiously extreme—set in contrast to the West’s supposed rationality and progress. Whether in colonial travel accounts, Hollywood films, or news coverage, the east is imagined through a religious lens that ultimately serves to justify Western feelings of superiority.
And again—does religion hold some unique significance in Turkey that it doesn’t in the other 204 sovereign states, or why is it the only country mentioned in the opening paragraph? ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey has a Muslim-majority population. This is not stereotypes shaped by outsiders
Also note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is focussed on the Wikipedia article, so is not using the talk page as a forum. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how speculation about Western self perception is relevant to the lead of this article.
But if you are suggesting Western self perception should be criteria that should be added to things like MOS:LEADREL, you are welcome to propose it in WP:VP Bogazicili (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, placing religion in the very first sentence constitutes undue weight, since it is LITERALLY UNPRECEDENTED.. Everything that, today, appears in every article of a given sort originally appeared in only one of them and was LITERALLY UNPRECEDENTED at the time. So, clearly, that can’t be what “undue weight” means. Note that I’m not opining here on whether, overall, that information should be given in the lead. I’m just pointing out the invalidity of that argument. Largoplazo (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know the complexion of Bogazicili’s skin, but I know from the userpage that they have Turkish as a native language. I agree with the basic point of the OP’s post, but not with the way they made it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which (sorry for talking about you in front of you, Boğaziçili), “Boğaziçili” literally means “from Boğaziçi”. “Boğaziçi”, in turn refers to the parts of Istanbul lying along the Bosphorus, which, in turn, in Turkish is called “Boğaz”, meaning “throat”. It’s also the name of a number of other localities in Turkey, as well as the name of an university in Istanbul. Largoplazo (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all religious but I think the very short sentence about religion is fine in the first paragraph. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including the “religion of the majority population” in the first paragraph of the lead is unprecedented in any other country article on Wikipedia. Nowhere in the lead sections of articles on countries such as Poland, Costa Rica, Egypt, Thailand, France, Algeria, Uruguay, India, Zimbabwe, Germany, Japan, Albania, Australia, Israel, China, or Brazil is the dominant religion mentioned. Singling out Turkey in this way is neither neutral nor consistent with established Wikipedia practice. And not just the countries I listed… Well, I haven’t checked all 205 country articles in the “List of sovereign states”, but as far as I have checked, I haven’t come across a SINGLE example in the first paragraph that contains such a statement. That statement is irrelevant to the first paragraph of the lead and should be removed. It is an unparalleled statement across Wikipedia country articles. My objection is about its unmatched position within Wikipedia. Including such data in the infobox of this article is all fine, as it is a fairly common practice across country articles in Wikipedia. (unlike the current situation) Placing religion in the very first paragraph constitutes undue weight, since it is LITERALLY UNPRECEDENTED. No one is disputing the factual accuracy of the statement. The objection lies in its disproportionate emphasis by positioning it in the opening paragraph, which—again— has no precedent. Does religion hold some unique significance in Turkey that it doesn’t in the other 204 sovereign states, or why is it the only country mentioned in the opening paragraph? ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. This is already being discussed above. Also, please do not type in all caps, as it may be considered shouting. Day Creature (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba @Bogazicili

I don’t think that removing the second “ethnic” from

“Turkey is home to over 85 million people; most are ethnic Turks, while ethnic Kurds are the largest ethnic minority.”

makes it less precise.

In the sentence

“Turkey is home to over 85 million people; most are ethnic Turks, while Kurds are the largest ethnic minority.”

the reader can easily understand that “Kurds” is referring to ethnic Kurds – even if they think that there is a country called Kurdistan they know from the word “ethnic” before the word “minority” that we are talking about ethnic Kurds not people with Kurdish passports.

I contend that removing the middle “ethnic” makes the sentence more readable without losing precision.

Can anyone give a 3rd opinion here?

Chidgk1 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the reader can easily understand that. And it’s just one extra word.
For example, these issues were discussed in Talk:Turkish_people/Archive_17#Citizenship_and_ancestry
See sources such as [6] about how terms may vary.
I didn’t have the time to implement some of the changes mentioned in above topic. Bogazicili (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you reference is about Turkish ethnicity versus Turkish citizenship versus Turkic peoples. The external source is likewise differentiating ethnicity from citizenship. There is no Kurdish citizenship and there is no greater “Kurdic” people to conflate Kurds with. So there’s no analogy here.
Further, “are the largest ethnic minority” makes it clear, even to somebody who’d never heard of Kurds before, that the word “Kurds” is referring to an ethnic group. In the sentence “The largest city in Pakistan is Lahore”, is it not clear that Lahore is a city? Would readers not understand that Lahore is a city unless I rewrote it as “The largest city in Pakistan is the city of Lahore”? Might they instead think it’s a village or a rock band or a flavor of ice cream? Largoplazo (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to add a fourth opinion that the repetition of “ethnic” is redundant here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise, per @Phil Bridger, I wish to add a fifth opinion that one mention of ethnic is enough, i.e.
“Turkey is home to over 85 million people; most are Turks, while Kurds are the largest ethnic minority.”
The end of the sentence clarifies quite clearly that we are talking about ethnic groups here, not citizenship, and there is no minority citizenship to begin with. Uness232 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Turkey is home to over 85 million people; ethnically, most are Turks, while Kurds are the largest minority.”? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But, in addition, and apart from what we’ve been talking about, though I’m a prolific user of semicolons, I think this should be two sentences. “Turkey is home to over 85 million people.” Full stop. Then whatever version of the ethnicity-related content is to follow. Largoplazo (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, did you read the sources before making the suggestion?
“Turk” may mean both citizenship and ethnic background:
  • The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey, p. 288:

    A noteworthy change was also present at the discursive level. A debate was raised advocating a civic definition of Turkish national identity. According to this view, the basis of Turkish national identity should not be ethnic Turkish descent (Türk), but origin from the territory constituting the Republic of Turkey (Türkiyeli). Whereas the main aim of the initiative was to bridge the gap between the Turkish state and its biggest minority, the Kurds, …

  • The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey, p. 247:

    The number of ethnic Kurds in Turkey and in surrounding countries is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate, as ethnic identity is often a matter of personal choice, particularly where mixed marriages are common and millions of people migrate from their homeland in search of a better life

  • Here’s a journal article published on Nationalities Papers. It seems like a good quality journal. The article:

    As Turkey has been debating a new constitution, the definitions of national identity and citizenship have become one of the most contested issues. While some defend keeping Turkishness as the only identity in the constitution, others argue for a change such as using the term Türkiyeli (people from Turkey) or adding Kurdishness besides Turkishness as the two main communities of the nation. Those who support the maintenance of Turkishness as the only national identity tend to argue that Turkishness represents a civic – or territorially and legally based – identity that is inclusive of ethnic identities such as Kurds, Albanians, and Arabs.
    Others tend to perceive Turkishness as an ethnic identity and thus support either its removal or the adding of other ethnicities, primarily Kurdishness, in addition to Turkishness. 1

That’s why I think ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds are more precise. As the journal article says, many people also have multiple ethnic identities. Bogazicili (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, “ethnic” would needed before Turks. Otherwise, “most are Turkish citizens, while Kurds are the largest ethnic minority”, while not what was meant, would be a valid interpretation. I say that, though, before taking into account FFF’s suggested additional modification, above, which does take care of the repetition altogether and unambiguously. Largoplazo (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, though I am skeptical that such a misunderstanding would happen, context clues and all. I still agree that FFF’s wording is superior to mine. Uness232 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those weren’t the only issues in the discussion or in the journal article, but I added some quotes above. Bogazicili (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version