Talk:Justice and Development Party (Turkey)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lock this

Can someone lock this page. It seems as if it is being vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsean (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Taming of the bulb

"The party's logo is a lightbulb, symbolizing its plan for a modern yet religious Turkish Republic"

'never realised the lightbulb was a religious symbol!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.206.199 (talk • contribs) Just looking at the picture, if u remove the light bulb, you are left with the light. light=enlightenment=InnerPeace=Religion

wikipedia=internet=people=brainless creatures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.206.102 (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is read at official site that "AK PARTi’nin amblemi stilize edilmifl yanan bir ampuldür. Ampul; ›fl›¤›, ayd›nl›¤›, fleffaf yönetimi ifade eder. Ampuldeki yanma, hareketi ve gayreti anlat›r." I translated it into English.Ayasi 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Light" (türkish: "Nur") aspect of the logo is an allusion to the fact that the AKP is very strongly influenced not only by Erbakan's old party and Millî Görüş, but also quite strongly by the movement of Fethullah Gülen, which is the present-day incarnation of the Nur-movement (Nurculuk) of Said Nursi. Other influences: [1]

Article is out of date

The article refers to dates in 2005 as being in the future. -- 68.146.190.96 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate terminology

Islamofascist is an extremely controversial term which I don't think has any place in this article, especially considering the AK's behavior in recent events. Additionally I don't think even the AK's harshest critics utilize this term in reference to the party, it's reserved mostly (and still often misused) for discussions about terrorists and those groups who talk about forcibly reinstating the Caliphate. Lydia 14:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AK Parti Logo

I updated the logo with a better quality one (which also happens to be larger than the previous one). -- WiiVolve 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AKP Logo.png

Image:AKP Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

current events edits

I've been following the 2007 elections closely from the states and updated the AKP article as best I could. I got my stats from Turkish Daily News and the NYT, can I get verification from Turkish users that this is indeed the final count? Lyddiechu 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Media reports say the electoral commission will not release final figures until at least 27 July, and some narrow results have changed as final figures have come in (e.g. AKP picked up a seat previously tipped for the DTP in Hakkari when votes from customs officials came in). But I'd be surprised if they changed significantly at this stage. I've updated with the latest figures, just keep your eye on things as they change and be bold when you get new information. Gerry Lynch 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Someone posting from IP address 68.161.69.139 vandalized the page earlier today stating that "and most of it’s members will be hanged in Imrali after the military coup." Come on now, let's be mature and update the party's fate at the hands of the military if anything actually happens.Lydia 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the vandalism, could someone please correct it?

I corrected it, but user DonCalme is now vandalizing the page in the same manner.Lydia 05:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Gogo Dodo for fixing the problem. Lydia 06:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 86.21.92.10 on 16:33, 3 June 2013‎ (51 bytes) (-27,885)‎ . . (←Replaced content with ' AKP BEN SENIN GOTUNU SIKIM OROSPU ÇOCUKLARI') (undo) (Tag: blanking) --Liesbeth98 (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Faulty hyperlinks

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_%28Turkey%29 includes a link to an external website, "Turkishpolitix.com - Online dossier on the AKP".

The URL associated with this link returned an error late on 17th October 2007.

http://www.turkishpolitix.com/akp.html/

Object not found!

The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.

If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.

Error 404

www.turkishpolitix.com

Wed Oct 17 20:58:04 2007

Apache/2.0.55 (Debian) FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_python/3.1.3 Python/2.3.5 PHP/4.4.2-1.1

The link in the Wikipedia article malfunctioned again, for a third time, at "21:37:04", and a fourth at "21:56:27". [However, Wikipedia claims to be using UTC. 'My' terminal is using British Summer Time, yet, from these times copied and pasted out of the browser display, Internet Explorer seems to be using Central European Time! Don't laugh. Microsoft have enough problems?]

However, deleting the '/akp.html' element then downloaded http://www.turkishpolitix.com

Clicking on the link there for 'AKP' then downloaded, ... guess what? http://www.turkishpolitix.com/akp.html !!

Yet more! The http://www.turkishpolitix.com/akp.html URL, in the Preview display, is shown as an actual live hyperlink which even downloads the specified page! The link in the Wikipedia article does not!

I deleted it, as it was indeed broken, and not useful when fixed. (Notice the trailing slash.) --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Government Funding?"

The section on the court verdict from July 30 2008 says that "government party" for the party will be reduced by 50%. Especially considering that AKP IS the governing party, I think It would make more sense to say that "state funding" or "funding from the central bank" will be reduced by 50%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilge Han (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reaction on the rulling

You could add the reaction of the EU supporting the recent decision. --Leladax (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Political ideology

I think we should change/expand the political ideology section of the party. The constitutional court approved that the party is Islamist and anti-secularist. Kaygtr (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Constitutional Court did not rule that. Furthermore, there is no consensus on whether Justice and Development is secularist, anti-secularist, or in between. (If there -were- a consensus that it were an Islamic party, then it would have been shut down.)

If you want to put up the debate on what, exactly, their ideology is, that's fine so long as it adheres to NPOV. Ramidel (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the court approved that the path of the party is "wrong" and its against the nature of the state. You can understand it when you look at the results. Ten out of Eleven, in this or that way, found the party "guilty". AKP stayed alive only because of the different judicial views of the head of the court. Actually, it is a better solution than just closing the party totally because now people don't have to deal with political arguments between opposing groups. Imho, we lived a really softened version of the legendary speech of İsmet İnönü back in the Adnan Menderes years, "Sizi ben bile kurtaramam" (...Even I can't save you). I don't think I have to remind what happened to the Menderes government shortly afterwards. Deliogul (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Court ruling Base No 2008/1 (Political Party Dissolution), Decision No 2008/2, Decision Date 30.7.2008: "It can not be denied that the defendant party’s activities found in contradiction with secularism due to the exploitation of religion and religious feelings may disrupt democratic functioning through alienation of the society from the state and politics, and cause a questioning of the legitimacy of the constitutional order. ... That the defendant party has become the foci of such activities should be established as indicated by the proposal and passing of Law no. 5735 on the Amendment of Certain Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, which was repealed by Constitutional Court decision E. 2008/16, K. 2008/116."

"A search for an anti-secular system has not been observed in the statute and program of the defendant party. Yet, it is possible for the defendant political party to hide different objectives and tendencies. In order to determine if the party in question has such tendencies, it is necessary to compare the contents of the program with the activities and views of party organs. If the party’s activities and views as a whole is a materialization of the objectives and tendencies to damage the constitutional order within the framework established above, the dissolution of the party may become a possibility."

"...As a result of the voting in the case for the dissolution of the Justice and Development Party for it became the foci of activities contradicting with the principles of democratic and secular Republic as expressed in article 68, paragraph four of the Constitution, Osman Alifeyyaz PAKSÜT, Fulya KANTARCIOĞLU, Mehmet ERTEN, A. Necmi ÖZLER, Şevket APALAK, and Zehra Ayla PERKTAŞ voted for the 'Dissolution of the Party'; Sacit ADALI, Ahmet AKYALÇIN, Serdar ÖZGÜLDÜR, and Serruh KALELİ voted for the 'Deprivation of the half of the State assistance, instead of the dissolution of the Party'; Haşim KILIÇ voted for the 'rejection of the case', for the qualified majority stipulated in article 149, paragraph one of the Constitution required for the dissolution of political parties has not been achieved, by transferring the against votes to the closest alternative with the reference of article 33 of the Law no. 2949 to article 229, paragraph three of Law no. 5271, in accordance with article 101, paragraph two of the Law no. 2820, and article 69, paragraph seven of the Constitution, the Justice and Development Party TO BE DEPRIVED OF HALF THE STATE ASSISTANCE IT SHALL RECEIVE, for year 2008 (final year)..."

In a nutshell, the Constitutional Court found JDP to be in conflict with the principles of democratic and secular Republic expressed in articles 2 and 68 of the Constitution. The ruling also makes frequent references to the moderate Islamist stance of the party. See full text published in Official Gazette.--Eleman (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the Constitutional Court ruled that "AKP is the focus of anti-secular actions." There is not any discussion about this fact. The court not only did rule this fact, but also punished the party due to these actions. The ideology of the party is clearly "anti-secularist" or "anti-laicist".

Islamic democratic

One of the leading figures (now shure right now who it was) one's called the party (in German media) a islamic democratic party comparable to the chritian democratic parties in Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.234.191 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The AKP has been accorded observer status with the European People’s Party, described as "the conservative party of the EU" in this article, but actually also the umbrella group of choice for European Christian Democracy in the European Parliament. There are plenty comparisons of the AKP with Christian Democracy (just Google [AKP Islamic-equivalent Christian-Democratic]); U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, for example, has said that he sees the AKP as the Islamic equivalent of a European Christian Democratic party. Also Greek foreign minister George Papandreou declared there was no reason Turkey's new government could not be an Islamic democratic party. All this does not mean more than that these people believe AKP could be a party with confessional roots, yet embracing secularism. What they possibly do not realize, is that laiklik in Turkey is not quite the same as secularism in Western Europe. I don't know of instances where AKP officials have actually called the party "Islamic democratic", but they may have compared themselves to parties like the CDU, something asserted without citation here – although this source states, unfortunately also without citation: "One category which the AKP at least rejects is any notion that they are an Islamic Democratic Party in the way that some European parties are Christian Democrats."  --Lambiam 09:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this addressed to me? I don't have a particular interest in this article, so I'll let somebody else incorporate the above. Also of general interest: "The dark side of Turkey", ESI briefing, 11 April 2008 and Isik University's Ioannis N. Grigoriadis, Upsurge amidst Political Uncertainty - Nationalism in post-2004 Turkey --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had intended to address it to you, I would have indented it more deeply than your comment.  --Lambiam 22:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Erdogan says that they are not an Islamic party, but a democratic conservative party. You see the weaknesses of the German media as regarding foreign news. Randam (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure/Dissolution

Quasi-official translation of Turkish Constitution uses the term dissolution for what is termed closure here. For the sake of technical consistency I suggest replacing words closure with dissolution here and in this page as well. If no one disagrees, I'll do the changes in next week.--Eleman (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mention "ban", "closure", and "dissolution" in the first instance (to show that they are used interchangeably in the press), then use dissolve thereafter. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation "AKP"

The information that "AKP" is an abbreviation for the party's (Turkish) name was repeatedly removed from the article, as well as the following footnote:

The former of the two abbreviations [i.e., "AK Parti" –L.] is the official one, as documented in the third article of the party charter, while the latter [i.e., "AKP" –L.] is mostly preferred by its opponents; since the word "ak" in Turkish means "white", "clean", or "unblemished," lending a positive impression.

Should the article mention the abbreviation "AKP"? I think it should, for the following reasons:

1. "AKP" is a commonly used abbreviation for the Justice and Development Party, both in English-language and in Turkish-language sources.
2. In fact "AKP" is much more common in English-language sources than "AK Parti" and "AK Party" combined. Compare the about 73,700 Google hits for the search [Erdogan "AKP"] with the about 22,600 hits for [Erdogan "AK Parti" OR "AK Party"]. (I included Mr. Erdoğan's name in the query to avoid including web pages in the count in which "AKP" is used but means something else.
3. The abbreviation "AKP" is also used by reliable and respectable news sources, such as The New York Times (see here, here and here) and The Times (see here, here and here).
4. The abbreviation "AKP" is also quite commonly found in Turkey, as can be seen from the Habertürk article cited above.

Wikipedia should report, and not censor the indisputable information that "AKP" is an abbreviation in use (and in fact also the most common one used in Turkey-related Wikipedia articles), thereby making it impossible to even mention the controversy.  --Lambiam 11:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But it is NOT formal, isn't it? please look up to the Formal Web site --Lumoy (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the Party statutes state that "AK PARTİ" (in all caps) is the "Abbreviated Name of the Party". But do we as Wikipedians have to follow the Party in this respect? By all means this is a curious "abbreviation", just like it would be if the Anti-Masonic Party had announced that the abbreviated name of the club is "AM PART".

To explain that this "abbreviation" is a PR propaganda stunt, I need to go into a rule of Turkish grammar. When a proper noun is formed from an adjective + a noun, the noun thus qualified remains unchanged: yeni (new) + yol (way) becomes Yeni Yol. However, if the qualifier is itself a noun phrase, the (final) noun thus qualified in the resulting so-called "indefinite compound" takes the third-person suffix of possession: Beşiktaş (an Istanbul neighbourhood) + jimnastik (gymnastics) + kulüp (club) becomes Beşiktaş Jimnastik Kulübü. Likewise, adalet ve kalkınma (justice and development) + parti becomes Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi. When Adalet ve Kalkınma is abbreviated to AK, it remains grammatically a noun phrase, so, according to the rules of Turkish grammar, when it is used to qualify the noun parti the result should be AK Partisi. The omission of the grammatically obligatory possessive suffix implies, to the Turkish listener, that the qualifier is not a noun but an adjective. As it is (surprise surprise), it just so happens that there is an adjective ak in Turkish, which means white, clean (also figuratively), unsullied, or unblemished.[2] So what a Turkish listener hears, by the use of this grammatical trick, is not the "AK Party" but the "Clean Party". There is a further, possibly intentional, ambiguity in that the official "abbreviation" is always presented in all caps, as AK PARTİ. This leaves the possibility open that in a mixed upper/lower case rendering this should become "Ak Parti", in which the first word is unambiguously the adjective ak rather than an initialism for Adalet ve Kalkınma. Incidentally, our Manual of Style may be interpreted as actually prescribing that we render "AK PARTİ" as "Ak Parti" on Wikipedia, depending on how it is pronounced.

Not surprisingly, non-adherents of the AKP, and certainly its opponents, have not generally felt obliged to follow the "Clean Party" in this grammatical trickery. Apart from "don't care", there are two incompatible notions of neutrality in the controversy. Position A is that the use of "AK Parti" implies going along with a PR trick, so that you are thereby aligning yourself with the Party in its propaganda to project itself as the "clean" party (as opposed to the implied corruption of the old parties), and that neutrality demands the use of "AKP". Position B is that "AKP" implies that you are an opponent of the Party, and that neutrality (and political correctness and politeness) require one to stick with the one and only abbreviation carrying the Party's official stamp of approval.

Some additional history. The Party is founded in 2001. The English Wikipedia article is created December 15, 2003, when the Party is already more than a year in power. In early versions of Wikipedia articles on the Party (in all languages) only "AKP" is used as an abbreviation, The "abbreviation" (as "Ak Party", with a lower-case "k") first appears in Wikipedia on April 5, 2005, namely in the text of the article on the English Wikipedia with this edit. It is then not identified as an abbreviation; instead the new text states: 'often referred to in Turkey as the "Ak Party," Ak being Turkish for white, clean, or unblemished)'.

The "abbreviation" is only introduced in the text of the Turkish Wikipedia article (as "Ak Parti" with again a lower-case "k"), replacing "AKP", on November 6, 2006 with this edit, although the new lightbulb logo of the Party with the caption "AK PARTi" (all caps) has been added before, on April 9, 2006, with this edit. (The old logo, not present on any Wikimedia project, had no caption and a much less stylized lighbulb.) Interestingly, the file name for that logo is Dosya:AKP.jpg. After that, there is a bit of a lukewarm edit war on the Turkish Wikipedia, as shown for example by this edit, changing all occurrences of "AK Parti" – at the time only occurring in the external links section – back to "AKP". As recently as today, the (factual and neutral) information that the abbreviation "AKP" is also in widespread use was censored from the article.

The version "AK Parti", with a capital "K", is first introduced in the running text of the English article on May 25, 2006, with this edit, and in the Turkish article, in all caps, on January 28, 2008, with this edit.

Since the controversy exists, we should report on it. A different question is which version we should preferentially use in (this and other) Wikipedia articles. I tend more towards position A: the use of "AK Parti" as an abbreviation is actually not neutral. There are also other reasons. Before I go into that, let me briefly dwell on the form "AK Party", which is sometimes used as an English "translation" of the Turkish AK Parti, in particular by the AKP itself (again in all caps: "AK PARTY"). But is this a proper translation? In English "AK" or "ak" is not an adjective, so when you translate "AK Party" back to Turkish, you get, unambiguously, AK Partisi. Therefore "AK Party" cannot be a really good English translation of the Turkish, since the Turkish is not an acceptable translation of the English. (Funnily enough, Google Translate, with its statistical approach, apparently recognizes "AK Party" as a special case and translates it to AK Parti. When you try anything else, like "KA Party" or "AK Club", you get, respectively, KA Partisi and AK Kulübü, entirely as expected.)

A Wikipedia policy is the naming convention that the names (titles) of articles should reflect what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. While the issue here is not an article title, we remain in the spirit of this policy if we use the version that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. Since "AK Parti" is almost unused in English texts, and "AKP" easily beats "AK Party", which by itself as explained above is a lame attempt at translating AK Parti, we have good reasons to prefer "AKP".

 --Lambiam 18:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

According to several government and state establishments, including Turkish Language Association (Türk Dil Kurumu) and judicial institutions, AKP is the official, formal and legal abbreviation of Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi.

AK PARTİ is not an abbreviation at all. It is just a slogan, meaning "The White Party" or "The Clean Party".

The link (http://www.haberturk.com/haber.asp?id=151231&cat=160&dt=2009/06/05) cannot be reached today. Kavas (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation "JDP"

This abbreviation is used in English language. For example, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/delegations/membersDel/membersTwin.do;jsessionid=9546F9F9FBF102C9646351317EC6D4D5.node1?body=D-TR&language=EN http://www.buzzle.com/articles/turkey-to-rightfully-prohibit-erdogan-islamic-terrorism-party.html http://nn-no.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36085395403 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5400/is_200910/ai_n42042252/ and there are many others Kavas (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Religious conservatism

There is a reference to the party's official agenda to justify it as being "religious conservative". There is no such indication in the reference. Furthermore, there isn't even evidence of "social conservatism". Please correct to retain objectivity.

Done. Kavas (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Centre-right

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-goes-to-polls-amid-violence-and-fears-of-islamism-458245.html Independent says Erdoğan believes AK Party is centre-right. However, AK Party does not declare this. Instead, they say they are at the center. What they mean by center is not the common meaning in European politics. But, I don't think we can delete this information since it's sourced but not true. Kavas (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe that AKP's party rhetoric has shifted farther right in recent years most notably on the European issue. That being said I believe the AKP is simply right-wing. ColumbusOH!6 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words?

I am removing the general header re weasel words as it will be easier if they are noted individually. Could anyone who thinks there are weasel words please annotate the particular sentences so they can be clarified. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideology?

If no one is going to write anything about their ideology we might as well remove the heading. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Organisation and funding?

Anyone know anything about organisation and funding - is not that important?

AKP is not islamist

AK Parti is not a political party with an islamist ideology. The party does neither portray themselves that way. It's true there exist references that clearly proves a sort of neo-religious attitude among the more conservative element of the party, such as prohibition of alcohol sales. However, the party as a whole can not really be considered islamist in it's nature. After all they're mostly the ones responsible for the economic and social boom in Turkey over the past decade. I do admit though that it is important to underline the accusation of having an islamist agenda like it's being done in the article but not claim it as the basis of their ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.138.2 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How come making an economic and social boom is the disproof of islamism? (and how come are they "mostly responsible" for this?)--78.186.15.52 (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

AKP isn't Islamist but conservative, this recent addition by Cemyildiz is misleading the infobox based on some media regulations and personal interpretations. If we're going take this as reference to "Islamism" one can also claim the exact opposite based on this, this or this. However these are not the actual references to AKP being "secularist" either; it's that AKP has never claimed to be Islamist and it's stated that the party sticks to secularism, religious freedom and similiar perspectives in their offical website (Part 1, Article 4) and the party constition. Hence why I'm removing "Islamism" as an "ideology" from the infobox. Nozdref (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Islamic democracy is against Turkish constitution. The party could be banned if it were to support any from of Islamic democracy. Many political parties were banned in Turkey because of this. Also the AKP promoted secularism abroad instead of Islamism (Muslim Brotherhood criticize calls for secular state) Liesbeth98 (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As Liesbeth98. They are officially not Islamist. Kavas (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Positions?

What positions does the party take on key issues? This article should have section dedicated the party's stance on sensitive issues like the Kurdish–Turkish conflict, the Cyprus dispute, and the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Charles Essie (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Information of the article

As an AKP supporter myself I would say that this article has a lack of information, objective information. There is a need to demonstrate or to refer to some of the party's reforms it has pushed through. Both the liberal social reforms and also its more recently criticized conservative approach. There are no reference for example to the widespread Gezi protests that erupted in the summer of 2013. I mean the amount of information on the wiki page of the opposition party, CHP, is much more detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.235.91.28 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The AKP is not Islamist

Please don't add Islamism to the AKP's ideological classification. The references are merely personal interpretations and do not reflect the official party view. We should differentiate between official party statements and personal interpretations of various websites and writers. Officially speaking, the AKP is not an Islamist party. The AKP officially defines itself as a conservative party and has refused to be associated with Islamism. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

To Ayberkakb

I respect the fact that you come from Turkey and I fully respect your opinions on the AK Party, but I have reverted your changes to the article for the following reasons:

1. The references that you provided did not establish or verify the official ideological viewpoint of the party. Your contributions to the article can be best described as personal interpretations of the party's ideological underpinnings. For instance, the party has clearly rejected its advocacy for Neo-Ottomanism, therefore we cannot pin this ideology to the party on the basis of the personal interpretations of certain authors. There are many instances in which party officials have come out and rejected the ideas of Euroscepticism and Neo-Ottomanism, therefore these ideological characterizations should not be added to the party's infobox. We should only add ideological characterizations that the party has officially advocated, such as Economic Liberalism and Social Conservatism. Apart from these two characterizations, the rest are simply disputed personal interpretations of various writers, which have already been rejected by the party.

2. Your classification of the AKP as a "right-wing" party is a blanket classification. The phrase "center-right" is more than enough to describe the party's position within the political spectrum and is also more specific than the phrase "right-wing", which refers to a broader scope of political views.

3. Please bear in mind that this is how parties are normally classified in Wikipedia. I personally agree with your opinions on the AKP. I also believe that they are Islamist and Neo-Ottomanist, but I cannot add these classifications to the infobox because the party officially rejects them. I hope you understand where I am coming from.

All the best. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

1- First of all, in Wikipedia we don't always cite the official references, especially in the political party pages. You always keep saying that AK Party is not neo-ottomanist or we mustn't state it and your only base to support this idea is an official statement. Golden Dawn also officially rejects any links with Nazism but in Wikipedia page, you see "neo-nazism" in the infobox. Even German NPD denies Nazism! (Don't misunderstood, I don't relate AK Party to these parties, I just want to convince you about your concerns.) But again, everyone knows the truth and declare it to the public. Because there is always a "de facto" situation in domestic and foreign politics. And there is always an argument about a political party's purposes and hidden/tacit or overt ideologies/tendencies; people (academics, actually politicians, voters, etc.) try to reach a consensus to clarify these things, because this is an elastic area and thereby political parties' ideologies and actual policies can be converted by policy makers. In Turkey, this is what we reach about AK Party. For a last 2-3 years, PM Erdoğan and his staff (foreign policy makers) make statement about their Neo-Ottomanist foreign policy all the time; they don't say that they are Neo-Ottomanist, but they say "We are going to establish an universal/imperial state" (statement by Davutoğlu: I've cited the reference but I think you didn't check it. And also Erdogan made this statemant 2 years ago) they say "I will go to every land that my ancestry had gone before", in meetings PM Erdoğan always keeps telling his Ottomanic ideals and his services that provided to these Ottoman lands. And also, Turkey's "soft power approach" to the Mid-East and lately harsh/aggressive approach to Syria conflict should be understood by regarding and thinking AK Party's neo-ottoman purposes. Most of the foreign policy experts/academics come up with this analysis. Furthermore, the mass accept AK Party's Neo-Ottomanist politics/approachs and journalists/academics that state "Turkey must be an imperial state", become head-advisors for Erdoğan or start to work in Ministry of Foreign Affairs. What I say is; Neo-Ottomanism becomes one of the base ideology/approach that AK Party identify themselves with. Previously, Erdoğan was identfying his "nation" by counting the ethnicities that include non-Muslims (Armenians, Rums, Assyrians), but 2 years ago he suddenly stopped countring them and nowadays, he only counts "Turks, Kurds, Circassians, Bosniaks" (Muslim people) as his "nation".

2 - I don't say that "AK Party is a right-wing party". I marked the position of the party as "centre-right to right-wing", and cited an important reference. And also I'll give you more. This is official. "Centre-right to right wing" displays a tendency (and a transition). I don't know where you come from and whether you know Turkish language or not, but I understood you are interested in Turkey politics, so I think you also have a solid idea about what this "tendency" is.

3 - Euroscepticism thing. EVERYONE knows that AK Party's EU approach or contact is a legitimisation tool and AK Party is totally against Europeanism. I also think it is better to remove it from the box, but - not many - in 2 years, it will be clearly understood.

4 - I undo your changes, but that doesn't mean I stopped the arguement, vice versa, that's what we must do. So I am open to your thoughts and your changes/undo in the infobox. But I hope you understand why I did the editing and you'll also accept it.

My best regards. Ayberkakb 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ayberkakb! :-) I made some changes that I felt would make the article fairer. I hope you agree with me. By the way, "center-right" is part of the "right-wing" spectrum, so I think you meant to say "center-right to right", which would be more grammatically appropriate. I also added, in the infobox, that the Neo-Ottomanist attribution to the party is disputed. This is how it's done in the Wiki page for the Golden Dawn party as well. Take care and please feel free to tell me if you disagree with any of my recent changes. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nadia, thank you for your understanding and contributions. It works for me, no problem :) See you. Ayberkakb 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

criticism non-existent

The whole article is like written directly from the AKP office. I can't believe that:

1. There is NOTHING written about the Gezi Park protest. How comes so? The protest are downright against the AKP government and have gained the biggest medial attention together with the Ukranian protest.

2. "Centre-right"? By which standards? Even for turkish standards there are not centre, let alone european standards. They are authoritarian, anti-laicist and demand for things like Sex segregation and others. Not to mention that any kind of criticism is officially stated by the party as "Western coninspiracy" (where several european statesmen are openly denunciated). What is centre about this?

3. Where is the criticism part especially against their ideology, which many experts has seen as a cornerstone for the islamization of Turkey? Where is the part about the corruption scandal? In any other Wikipedia - such as the German Wikipedia - you have this part. -- 213.240.94.199 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Far Right?

Is the AKP really a far-right party as it says in the infobox? It just seems a bit unusual for a mainstream party to have such an extreme position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.53.163 (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected the article for ten days, to bring a pause to the current edit war over the "Ideology" line in the infobox. Please resolve this issue via a discussion of relevant sources here on this talkpage, leading to a consensus for what goes into the article.

Anon or non-autoconfirmed editors who would like to make other unrelated edits to this page: apologies for the inconvenience of semi-protection, and please use the Template:Edit semi-protected template to request that your edits be incorporated. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So why do you guys protect the "nice" version? Anyone of you ever reads the news? Hardly anything positive to be heard about the AKP, unless you talk about their "democratic" views on beating anyone who is against Tayyip and if a woman is allowed to laugh.

The AKP sends about 10.000 "trolls" through the internet to censor every single bit of criticism (something that was even revealed through tapes). Like on this case. I hardly doubt "social conservatism" and "islamic DEMOCRACY" is the right term for a party that is up to destroy every single bit of secularism, democracy and pluralism left in this already not liberal country in order to create an neo-ottoman state that raises a "religious generation". -- 188.23.208.175 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version. We didn't protect the "nice" version on purpose. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not an opinion column. There is no such thing as a "nice" version. Their accomplishments as well as failures must be fairly noted with facts. But just some people claiming a superior knowledge over this subject and unilaterally deleting and allowing certain contents based on their personal ideological preferences should be prevented. coeur de lion (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Error in side table

The President is currently Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Ahmet Davutoglu is currently Prime Minister but plans not to run for office again. Thus, his office will end after the elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtalic (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

The lead section needs work. I'm going to help clean this section up by moving information into the body of the article and removing any material that does not belong in the article. Carpe765 (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article talk page have {{WikiProject Conservatism}} as a WikiProject template? It does not seem like a Conservatism party to me.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Right-Wing Populism

I would like to see or have access to the sources that supposedly assert this claim. Generally speaking the AKP is not a Right-Wing party nor is it populist although maybe you could reason that AKP is somewhat populist but it definitely is not "Right-Wing". It's on the right due to it being a conservative party but right-wing means its all the way at the edge much like AfD in Germany or the Alt-Right movement in the US which is different from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadvir (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are clearly confusing "right-wing" and "far-right". Both AfD and the Alt-Right are generally seen as far-right groups, while the term "right-wing" simply denotes a group that is clearly to the right of center. AK Parti is not centrist, but an heir to the Turkish Islamist milli görüş movement, which for the record was seen as a component of the far-right for decades, in that it was to the right of parties like DYP, ANAP and on a few issues even MHP. Regardless, "right-wing" has no connotations to extremism despite what you seem to suggest, and should be fine here. If your problem lies with placing an Islamist party on the right of the political spectrum, then you should see Wikipedia's own definition of what right-wing means. AK Parti is also a member of the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, which contains parties such as the AfD splinter group Liberal Conservative Reformers and the Polish PiS; all these parties are in the same political family, much since Islamism is generally considered a right-wing ideology, and in the Turkish case overlaps with the same type of right-wing populism found in the West. I'm interested in hearing what on earth makes you think AK Parti is not right-wing, even as they insist on being called "conservative democrats"? Are conservatives somehow not right-wing in your view? — Μαρκος Δ 18:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There are reliable sources describing AKP as right-wing populist and much of its rhetoric fits that description. As a consequence I think it is worth keeping that.--Jay942942 (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Grand National Assembly of Turkey 2018.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Islam democracy

In my honest opinion this should be removed from the summary table. As the quote in the article states the leaders reject the claim AKP is an islamist party. TheMuurtje (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Party can deny it all it wants to; its actions indicate otherwise.Ward Dunn (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If Hitler denies holocaust is that means holocaust din't happen? Turkfromturkey (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Erdogan once Said You can't be Muslim and Secular at the same time if this doesn' t sounds Islamist I dont know what does... Turkfromturkey (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

AKP and Islamism

I know this conversation has happened thousands of times, I assume there are more of these to come, but I guess it needs to happen. Islamism is back on the ideology box and this opens a weird Pandora's Box that's more about Wikipedia then it is about Islamism or the AKP.

So yeah, here are my thoughts on it:

I think very few would argue with the notion that the AKP panders to Islamists, as indicated by their rhetoric, even if that rhetoric is incompatible with orthodox Hanafi-Maturidi Islam most of the time. However, the question that arises here is not one of AKP's real ideology. The question is whether that real, albeit disputed, ideology belongs in the summary box of an encyclopedia article. Or say, as the Republicans, who have very openly pandered to racists (especially since their attempts at "preventing voter fraud" arguably has roots in the civil rights movement), doesn't have "white supremacy (denied by party members)" in its summary box, why should the AKP?

Some might argue that there are sources on this case, but that falls apart real quickly once you actually look at the sources - all but one dispute the notion that the AKP is actually Islamist, and that's without delving into the wealth of papers that argue that Republican ideology comes directly from scientific racism. Also, if this is an acceptable way of putting contentious material on these kinds of pages, should someone go and put "ethnic ultranationalism", "proto-fascism" or "white supremacy" (this might sound weird, but you could argue that the Sun Language Theory is, by its very nature, white supremacist) for CHP's historical ideology, as many scholars have pointed out the links between the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide and the cadres of the Republican revolution?

This next paragraph is less about consistency and more a hypothetical, I'm not proposing that we do this.

To be fair, if I was to judge parties based on their most real ideologies, in a sense, where their beliefs originate from, I would argue that the AKP is Islamist, just as every Christian conservative party would be Christian fundamentalist, as many of their ideologies come straight from the holy books, say their opposition to same sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality. However, notice the fact that this is very ironic for the AKP, as they are also avid admirers of the Ottomans, whose culture is the most homoerotic one that I'm aware of in the early modern era, and that's kind of the point. These parties' conceptions of morality for example aren't a set of strict rules that an "actual" religious party would want citizens to conform to, rather these are general ideas that create a consistent but not wholly coherent whole, which can override each other based on the so-called public good. AKP is a textbook example of that, with a whole lot more far-right populism and nationalism sprinkled in.

For now I will remove the Islamist bits, not the "it has been alleged that its Islamist" ones, only the ones that imply that that is the party's real ideology. If you disagree and/or want to revert my changes, please explain why you think so. Uness232 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Uness232 Very well put! could you possibly do the same with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party? It’s almost identical issues some people put Islamism and Islamist and others remove them claiming party leaders claim it’s not Islamist it’s clear they pander to Islamism they have Islamized the countries education system I would do what you did here on there but I really don’t think I could do it as effectively as you so I would love it if you could do this with that party but you don’t have to do whatever you like :) Black roses124 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Tehreek-e-Insaf, unfortunately, and Pakistani political parties are not my usual domain. I'm also unsure if you understand what I really meant here. I was talking about how Wikipedians should exercise caution when using the word Islamism, at least in my opinion - my point was that, while there are many words to describe the current state of the AKP (illiberal, authoritarian, ultraconservative etc.), Islamism should probably not be one. I'm not sure if I would agree with you on Tehreek-e-Insaf, but I guess we definitely disagree on the AKP.

Side note for others: Just mentioning this to counter some hypothetical Turkish guy shouting at me in this talk page, I'm also not happy with the use of 'neo-Ottomanism' for the AKP, but I find that it's a common enough descriptor and that it has a consistent meaning across reliable sources, so I'm not touching that. Uness232 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)