Talk:Justice and Development Party (Turkey)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pro-Europeanism 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Official site? 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illiberal democracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Authoritarianism mention in lede