I mean there's the official name, which has a canonical standard value and we can answer with an easy "yes" or "no."
And then there's this fuzzy "actual English language" question about, which is pretty hard to answer, and verges on philosophical "what even is a language/what is a name?" wankery. I can't see how you give a simple yes/no answer to that.
> I can't see how you give a simple yes/no answer to that.
I'm looking into my crystal ball and seeing the ~0 people who will be able to remember the slightly different and alien-looking-to-English spelling, and the even smaller value of ~0 who will ever be bothered to use the umlaut.
If language is just decided by popular vote, somebody should tell the English that they are using English wrong -- there are many more Americans after all.
Well—that's exactly the case, and that's why you see different usage guides and dictionaries for American English and British English. "Correct" usage, for values of correct that favor clarity for a given audience, does indeed differ substantially between American and British English, among many other variants and dialects.
What has minimal effect is some international standards body trying to dictate usage. Today, and likely for a long time to come, if not indefinitely, "Turkey" is less distracting or confusing to practically any English-speaking audience one might choose, than the new thing. The new one's odd-enough looking (again, even just considering the letter order) and the old one enough entrenched that I expect the old form to be the better choice for communication in English for a long time.
And then there's this fuzzy "actual English language" question about, which is pretty hard to answer, and verges on philosophical "what even is a language/what is a name?" wankery. I can't see how you give a simple yes/no answer to that.