This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Justice and Development Party (Turkey) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Justice and Development Party (Turkey) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 July 2008. |
|
|
I believe this article deserves an update as to the party's political alignment. The sources used to describe the party as right-wing date to 2015 and 2016. However, I have three sources from one research institute and two accredited universities describing the party's alignment, one of which specifically refers to it as radical right. Of course, this is not meant to confuse this party with the Nationalist Movement Party, which is even more extreme and quite possibly fascist, but I do believe it is worth noting the party's declining support in democracy and, subsequently, increasing authoritarianism. To prevent presenting a confirmation bias, I will acknowledge that I did not search for sources that merely refer to it as right-wing or conservative, so if there are current expert sources calling it merely right-wing, I could settle changing the political alignment to "Right-wing to far-right". Free Media Kid! 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are some sources that call the party far-right:
Helper201 ( talk) 11:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
For some reason, some people have problem with Pro-Europeanism as ideology. Perhaps this problem arises from the fact that some users have a wrong definition of the term. As the article of Pro-Europeanism states, it is a political position that favours membership of the European Union. The party members have never stated they are against EU membership. On the contrary, they have in a consistent manner always stated that they are in favour of EU membership: 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2010. -- Randam ( talk) 22:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the "Ideology" parametre is bloated. I propose the following:
Factions:
ValenciaThunderbolt ( talk) 13:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The official party site listed here gives me an "access denied". Have they changed their site? That seems an odd thing to get on a political party website. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
For @ Beyond My Ken: I somewhat agree with what you are saying. Ideology can also be something that the party itself denies while third-party sources accept. MHP and Neo-fascism is a good example of this. However, this is not entirely the issue at hand.
Ideologies generally refer to worldviews and rhetoric that are held and/or used by individuals and parties, not any state of being a country can find itself in. So no, ideologies aren't what others see is happening, in both colloquial and technical definitions it generally has to be manifested through certain rhetoric or thought. Action is generally not considered to be ideology, but rather the result of it.
Liberal democracy, for example, is a good example of something that is often an ideology and also a descriptor of a country, and people don't have to say "I'm a liberal democrat" for that to be true, because plenty of (other) people do openly support liberal democracy, and therefore there is a general consensus on what a supporter of liberal democracy wants. Rule of law, civil liberties, free and fair elections, etc. etc.
Illiberal democracy is not a descriptor of ideology in the same sense (yet). Nobody (except maybe Viktor Orbán, and even that's questionable) has ever claimed to be building a worldview around the concept of illiberal democracy, and no one has ever used it to elaborate what they want; the Wikipedia page also notes of this controversy in the lede. What does an 'illiberal democrat' want? How are they illiberal? How are they democrats? These we don't know the answer to yet. It's sort of like saying a party's ideology is "not-socialism". Yeah, sure, but what is it?
Third party sources do describe Turkey under later Erdoğan as an illiberal democracy. In that sense the word has enough semantic content, and Wikipedia notes that in the article content. In terms of a worldview, that's way less obvious.
These types of edits don't add anything to the article, and seeing the edit, you might concur that it's not entirely NPOV either. Wikipedia isn't an exposé of authoritarians, it's an encyclopedia; and seeing how uneasy the concept in question is, I question the usefulness (and to some extent the intent) of such edits. Uness232 ( talk) 14:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, you would need to open this conversation @ Randam, but I digress. You seem to misunderstand. I nowhere claim that you don’t see the sources as RS. I also see no problem with this lede. Democratic backsliding has been a major issue discussed in media about the AKP ever since the Gezi Park protests. It’s not just the last 4 years or something, that’s almost 2/3 this party’s rule. Whether you or I agree with the coverage is something else, but it has become an important part of RS coverage. To remove that would be ignoring most of what defined AKP rule according to sources. If change is necessary, we can add how some democratization and demilitarization was achieved in the 2000s, but removing the paragraph is beyond the realm of acceptable. Uness232 ( talk) 23:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Justice and Development Party (Turkey) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Justice and Development Party (Turkey) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 July 2008. |
|
|
I believe this article deserves an update as to the party's political alignment. The sources used to describe the party as right-wing date to 2015 and 2016. However, I have three sources from one research institute and two accredited universities describing the party's alignment, one of which specifically refers to it as radical right. Of course, this is not meant to confuse this party with the Nationalist Movement Party, which is even more extreme and quite possibly fascist, but I do believe it is worth noting the party's declining support in democracy and, subsequently, increasing authoritarianism. To prevent presenting a confirmation bias, I will acknowledge that I did not search for sources that merely refer to it as right-wing or conservative, so if there are current expert sources calling it merely right-wing, I could settle changing the political alignment to "Right-wing to far-right". Free Media Kid! 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are some sources that call the party far-right:
Helper201 ( talk) 11:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
For some reason, some people have problem with Pro-Europeanism as ideology. Perhaps this problem arises from the fact that some users have a wrong definition of the term. As the article of Pro-Europeanism states, it is a political position that favours membership of the European Union. The party members have never stated they are against EU membership. On the contrary, they have in a consistent manner always stated that they are in favour of EU membership: 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2010. -- Randam ( talk) 22:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the "Ideology" parametre is bloated. I propose the following:
Factions:
ValenciaThunderbolt ( talk) 13:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The official party site listed here gives me an "access denied". Have they changed their site? That seems an odd thing to get on a political party website. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
For @ Beyond My Ken: I somewhat agree with what you are saying. Ideology can also be something that the party itself denies while third-party sources accept. MHP and Neo-fascism is a good example of this. However, this is not entirely the issue at hand.
Ideologies generally refer to worldviews and rhetoric that are held and/or used by individuals and parties, not any state of being a country can find itself in. So no, ideologies aren't what others see is happening, in both colloquial and technical definitions it generally has to be manifested through certain rhetoric or thought. Action is generally not considered to be ideology, but rather the result of it.
Liberal democracy, for example, is a good example of something that is often an ideology and also a descriptor of a country, and people don't have to say "I'm a liberal democrat" for that to be true, because plenty of (other) people do openly support liberal democracy, and therefore there is a general consensus on what a supporter of liberal democracy wants. Rule of law, civil liberties, free and fair elections, etc. etc.
Illiberal democracy is not a descriptor of ideology in the same sense (yet). Nobody (except maybe Viktor Orbán, and even that's questionable) has ever claimed to be building a worldview around the concept of illiberal democracy, and no one has ever used it to elaborate what they want; the Wikipedia page also notes of this controversy in the lede. What does an 'illiberal democrat' want? How are they illiberal? How are they democrats? These we don't know the answer to yet. It's sort of like saying a party's ideology is "not-socialism". Yeah, sure, but what is it?
Third party sources do describe Turkey under later Erdoğan as an illiberal democracy. In that sense the word has enough semantic content, and Wikipedia notes that in the article content. In terms of a worldview, that's way less obvious.
These types of edits don't add anything to the article, and seeing the edit, you might concur that it's not entirely NPOV either. Wikipedia isn't an exposé of authoritarians, it's an encyclopedia; and seeing how uneasy the concept in question is, I question the usefulness (and to some extent the intent) of such edits. Uness232 ( talk) 14:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, you would need to open this conversation @ Randam, but I digress. You seem to misunderstand. I nowhere claim that you don’t see the sources as RS. I also see no problem with this lede. Democratic backsliding has been a major issue discussed in media about the AKP ever since the Gezi Park protests. It’s not just the last 4 years or something, that’s almost 2/3 this party’s rule. Whether you or I agree with the coverage is something else, but it has become an important part of RS coverage. To remove that would be ignoring most of what defined AKP rule according to sources. If change is necessary, we can add how some democratization and demilitarization was achieved in the 2000s, but removing the paragraph is beyond the realm of acceptable. Uness232 ( talk) 23:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)