Talk:Justice and Development Party (Turkey)

AKP as a far-right party

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". FreeMediaKid! 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a controversial claim and you need come with more sources. Random ips and users will probably revert you. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I came here. Anyway, I did manage to fine three more sources: one by The Jerusalem Post, one by Springer Nature, and another by the University of Helsinki. The second source refers to the party as ultra-conservative, and note that I have now listed two sources by the University of Helsinki, for a total number of five unique publishers. That may or may not change your opinion, but I can still try to find more if you like. FreeMediaKid! 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no further obejections. AKP moved recently further to right. And this can't be ignored Shadow4dark (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked the cited sources and it doesn't use the term "far-right" explicitly for AKP. While you may believe that "radical right" is the same as "far right", we can not interpret it like that per WP:OR. The only mention of AKP as a far-right party in those 5 sources is the jpost column by Seth J. Frantzman. But that guy is known as activist like analyst.

More importantly, the internet has billions of pages. You can almost find everything to fulfill your confirmation bias. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, you are not to validate every minority view. The amount of times AKP is called "far-right" is just too extremly small compared to amount of "right-wing". Randam (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

FreeMediaKid can you respond comment above? Shadow4dark (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No response. Plus, using that logic we can add "center-right" as the party was recently mentioned as such in a Reuters article.--Randam (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No current positions are correct. AKP is in same alliance with MHP and great unity party and they clearly moved recently more to right. One mention is not enough for this. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are some sources that call the party far-right:

• The Commentaries - Volume 1, 2021
• Twitter suspends, reinstates key Syria coverage account. The Jerusalem Post
• A Mob Boss’s YouTube Channel Is Causing Political Havoc in Turkey. Vice Media

Helper201 (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The vast-majority of sources still call the party right-wing. It might be acceptable to say right-wing to far-right, but that'll likely cause controversy. Definitely should keep that in article content though, something along the lines of "some sources have described the party as far-right". Uness232 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually will just go ahead and do this. Uness232 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources call the party far-right then I don't see the problem with putting this in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the main text, in which case it doesn't make sense to omit this from it. I think editors choosing what sourced info does and does not go in the infobox isn't particularly neutral. Helper201 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well we do have to make a choice one way or another. It's not "not a choice" when we include it.

The problem is assessing balance. The vast majority of sources in this article refer to the party as 'right-wing', and most of them don't even mention the word 'far-right'. Infoboxes can not make nuanced attributions, and therefore has to present a consensus view. I don't think that consensus exists in sources at this moment, and as I said, adding something like this without clear consensus of sources will undoubtedly cause controversy. I say this while I also think that if Fidesz is 'right-wing to far-right' then so is the AKP. The problem is the sources; you will put far-right there, and someone will remove it, rightfully citing the majority of sources in this article. Uness232 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it should not be up to editors opinions on what is or is enough citations for infobox inclusion. If its evidenced enough to include in the main text then its evidenced enough for the infobox. One of the sources for far-right is a book written by academics, which is in-of-itself a very good source. Also, there's literally only ONE more citation specifically stating right-wing than there is for far-right. I don't think the lack of one extra source means one position can be included in the infobox while another cannot. Helper201 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I still disagree, but we seem to be going around in circles. The rest of the article is full of sources referring to the party as simply right-wing. We don’t need to cite every one in that specific citation. And I did not claim it was about my opinion, but balance. And right-wing to far-right is simply not a balanced reading of the sources. Uness232 (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing is fine. AKP is authoritarian, oppressive towards minorities and a bane of the economy, but that's the right wing; it is in no way ultranationalist like the diehard far-right crazies are in Turkey. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism

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)

Ideologies Infobox

It seems that the "Ideology" parametre is bloated. I propose the following:

• Conservative democracy
• National conservatism
• Neo-Ottomanism
• Soft Euroscepticism

Factions:

• Conservative liberalism
• Pro-Europeanism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be shorter but remove also factions as it is not their main ideology.Shadow4dark (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

For the 'Factions' part, the current nomenclature, 'historical', fits well. The early AK Party was pretty consistent in both its Pro-Europeanism and conservative liberalism, and while these are definitely not their "main ideology" right now, they definitely used to be. Uness232 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both your statements. It would be wise to have "historical" than "factions" (that can be for the "Ideology" section of the page.). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Autospark, Number 57, and Checco: What are your opinions on reducing them? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

ValenciaThunderbolt you shouldn't be pinging a select group of editors you know. This should be done in a neutral way, such as via a RfC. Also, I've noticed you've been going about Wikipedia pages attempting to reduce the ideology list in the infobox party-by-party. This should really be discussed on a broader and greater scale as to whether or not we should limit the ideology section in political party infobox's on a general basis, not go party-by-party. Helper201 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would have only "National conservatism" and "Islamism". I particularly oppose factions and any reference to the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checco (talk • contribs)

And how would this be a balanced overview of the nature and ideologies of the AKP, @Checco:? The early AKP was stridently pro-European, and Islamism is not even a consensus ideology for the AKP (at least not that we've established). This is not about re-configuring the ideology section with new terms, it's about trimming the section.

@Helper201: I pinged such users as they are the ones I've seen contribute the most to such discussions, not because I know them (which I don't really). If you could message me the link where I can create a discussion for the reduction of ideologies on a greater scale, I would gratefully appreciate it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

ValenciaThunderbolt apologies but I'm unable to think where this would be at the moment. Perhaps one of these would be best, (or a person involved in these communities may be help to direct you to the most appropriate place): Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia:Village pump, Wikipedia:Help desk. It’s basically to ensure a wide consensus, since your proposal of ideology reduction seems to be across political party pages in general and not just specific to certain ones (unless I'm mistaken). Helper201 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"Conservative democracy", "neo-Ottomanism", "soft Euroscepticism" and "pro-Europeanism" are not ideologies. They are basically policies, some of which invented by the party itself. Thus, they should not be mentioned in the infobox. I also oppose having a sub-section named "factions" in most cases. --Checco (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on your definition of ideology. I would say that they qualify per Merriam-Webster's foremost definition; a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture. Of course you can disagree with this definition, but it is popular enough that people generally think of ideology this way.

In terms of factions, I do not know why you oppose them, but in terms of this article, the correct nomenclature should be 'historical'. Almost no one in the AKP is Pro-European anymore. Uness232 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit that I consider directly referencing "Conservative democracy", the AKP's official nomenclature for their ideology, as not good academic practice. Explaining in the lede and ideology sections that the party officially describes their own ideology thus would be an improvement. Also, Historical ideologies should not be in the Infoboxes generally. In the case of this article, they should be moved to the Ideology section of the article body, with an explanation of the party's ideological drift in recent years to a much more authoritarian and isolationist stance.-- Autospark (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Point taken on conservative democracy; it is generally considered a smokescreen for the AKP's shapeshifting ideology. However, I would argue that AKP's eclectic ideology is precisely why the historical section should be included. Uness232 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd support the removal of conservative democracy from the infobox for the reasons given above, but not any of the others. Helper201 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I’d argue that “social conservatism” is superfluous/redundant if national conservatism is (rightly, IMO) listed as the primary ideology. Also, I agree with Checco that euroscepticism and neo-Ottomanism aren’t political ideologies but policy positions. I’m also not sure why we would refer to pro- or anti- EU policy positions.— Autospark (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How about including 'Erdoganomics',[1] ho ho, since it's more about political belief than actual economics. And then of course there's Erdoğanism, which has undoubtedly seized ahold of the AKP . Iskandar323 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose removal of social conservatism, it forms a very large part of their propaganda nowadays, and AKP is conservative in a different way than, say, right-wing Kemalist national conservatism (per İYİ).

On your "ideology or policy position" question, as I said before; that simply depends on how you define ideology. In most Wikipedia pages, it seems that a definition close to one I provided above is used. Not every ideology, at least by this standard, has to be the driving force of a party. Derivatives of that are also called ideologies, generally. This is why Euroscepticism is used as a label for parties in Greece, Ukraine, etc. And while "other stuff exists" is not an argument by itself in Wikipedia, I would posit that a general way in which a term is defined in Wikipedia can hold light on how it is to be defined here, as long as there are no other arguments against it. Neo-Ottomanism, is not just a policy position, by the way. (I would argue that it doesn't really exist at all, but sources not only seem to agree that it exists, but that it is a driving force of Erdoğan's politics.)

On Iskandar's suggestion, Erdoğanomics is not a common enough term. Erdoğanism could be used in a similar way to CUP and İttihadism, not sure if it's necessary though. Uness232 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the initial selection, except I would ditch "national conservatism" and keep "economic nationalism" - basically keeping everything that, at the time of this comment, had more than one source. "Post-Islamism" absolutely needs binning - as its page notes, it's a concept that doesn't even have a clear definition. I would also add Erdoğanism since the ideology of Erdogan has clearly come to completely dominate the AKP and this is highly party-specific to the AKP. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"National conservatism" is the broadest, most helpful and descriptive ideology in the current Infobox, so it really must be kept. I reject the use of personalitist ideological labels like "Erdoğanism" in Infoboxes for political parties, and I see no reason why this should be an exception to that.--Autospark (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I can get behind removing Post-Islamism. While all modern definitions of the word would include the AKP, some dispute the applicability of the term in general. I am neutral on Erdoğanism, as personalist labels are generally not included. I agree with Autospark on National conservatism; it is a better descriptor than simply economic nationalism, and is used more in sources. Uness232 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AK Party poster after the parliamentary elections in 2007.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Official site?

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ukraine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Illiberal democracy

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)

Authoritarianism mention in lede

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)

I agree that these statements are pretty vital as part of the overall summary. If anything, they could quite readily be expanded upon; what's currently there is pretty much the bare minimum summary of the very valid criticisms of the AKP to date. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I do think that Randam has a point somewhere here; if this section is to be expanded, some mention has to be made of how the early-AKP effectively curbed military-guided politics. It gradually replaced it with something just as (if not more) authoritarian, but the democratization process inherent to the early AKP is also part of the consensus. So if we are to expand, I do believe mention of this is necessary, but definitely not at this length. Uness232 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as you say, that's more a conversation about adding a point on curbing the military. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)