"Turkey" is the correct spelling in English. The Turkish government doesn't get to dictate what their country is called in other languages.
Some people in the government renamed the english spelling of my city into an unreadable alphabet soup. Not only they strongly insist the whole world to spell it this way, they also deem everyone who doesn't like it a traitor.
So, spelling matters. A lot. Unfortunately.
It's silly to think things don't change and rude to call people names they don't want to be called
The only authority on the English language is popular usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey
And even then all major US publications use Turkey:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/powerful-earthquake-strikes-tur...
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/05/world/turkey-earthqu...
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/turkey-earthquake-l...
https://www.foxnews.com/world/people-dead-turkey-syria-after...
So no, even in the US, "Türkiye" is not used. Please don't try to dictate to Americans and other first language speakers how our language is used.
Why would common usage matter for something that recently changed? Of course the former name is more commonly used. The State Department is the better source since they’re the ones dictating how the US government as a whole interacts with Türkiye.
It doesn’t matter what the people in the US call countries if we’re not the ones making deals and talking to their leaders. I can convince everyone that Russia would be call Assuria but that doesn’t make it’s name. The only ones that have authority of the name of a country is the country itself.
(Although, technically, that's a diaeresis, not an umlaut.)
BTW, that spelling is borderline archaic. It’s allowable, but so is “naive,” which is probably better style.
I wouldn’t use semi-archiac spellings as a precedent.
The problem with naive is that it's not very clear how to pronounce it: it's "na-ive", which isn't very clear. With naïve there's a clear indication that the "i" starts a new syllable.
While I agree that diaeresis in English are more archaic than not, I don't agree it's better style to leave them out. Right now there is, in my opinion, no good way to spell some words: "cooperation" is ambiguous (coo-peration, coop-eration, or co-operation?), "co-operation" looks ugly and is an abuse of the hyphen, and "coöperation" is nice but rather archaic.
A bit of effort to reduce ambiguity and match spelling and pronunciation (as far as the language allows) doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
Plenty of English words have little relation between how they are spelled and how they are pronounced.
We don’t usually revert to archaic spellings to solve the matter.
https://www.thoughtco.com/chaos-by-charivarius-gerard-nolst-...
Actually, to my surprise naïve even seems to be gaining in popularity to the point it's about on-par with naive: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=naive%2Cna%C3%...
And that other words in English have unfortunate spelling is not really a very string argument. You can use this on anything.
I wonder if this is the impact of technology. When written by hand, there's not much practical difference between naive and naïve. With English typewriters and English keyboards, writing naïve is tricky so people, presumably, just didn't bother. Now, however, a lot of written text goes through spelling correction so, if the spell checker wants naïve then it may automatically change it or suggest you do.
In my completely rigorous and scientifically valid testing of this assumption: Word corrects to naïve, Chrome text box flags naïve, Edge text box is happy with both and imessage suggests naive. So bit of a mixed bag.
Indeed, this is a universal property of English spelling.
(English band formed in London in 1975 and rocking an umlaut ever since)
Sorry, no, not outside a country, when dealing with foreign languages. Every language has different names for other countries, and they're frequently quite different from each other. Countries have no way of forcing foreign languages to adopt any particular name in those languages.
Are you saying there's no instances where a country has "rebranded" (for want of a better term) its own name and people outside that country have gone along with it?
And why aren't they making the same demands of other languages anyway? How about Chinese? How exactly would their new name fit into Chinese, a language that doesn't use Latin characters at all? Not to mention all the other European languages that do?
Now, you or anyone else can certainly spell it "Türkiye" instead of "Turkey", but a) you risk confusing people (which you may or may not care about), and b) typing "ü" is awkward on many (most? all?) English-layout keyboards. I suppose you could also spell it "Turkiye", which I suppose is closer to what the Turkish government wants, but is still "incorrect".
At any rate, I personally see little reason to change unless popular usage overwhelmingly changes. At least in the US, popular usage (which influences dictionaries) dictates English spelling, not governments.
The title on HN actually gets it "wrong" by the way, as it's supposed to be Türkiye, not Turkiye.
Things can have more than one spelling or name, and the "best" one depends on context and personal preference. You can argue from Constantinople to Istanbul about this; but it all seems rather pointless. I wish people would just accept that other people have different preferences. This fits in the "color vs. colour" or "courgette vs. zucchini" category.
Whether Türkiye or Turkiye catches on and becomes the more common spelling? We'll see. I guess it will eventually, but it may take a while.
English doesn't have umlauts
Anyway, back to your comment: this is a different issue. The pronoun thing is dealing with how people want themselves referred to in their own language, by people they know usually. The Turkey thing is about a government that wants its country called by a different name in a foreign language that it doesn't use.