Talk:List of political parties in Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Turkey (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments[edit]

Comment[edit]

Q: From where does the autor know that WP (IP) is a maoist party?

PKK[edit]

Why is the factual accuracy of the PKK being banned in doubt? Gerry Lynch 04:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

PKK is not a political party, it is a terrorist organization as recognized by many countries including US, EU, and Russia. It does not declare itself on legal grounds, so it cannot be banned by definition. Moreover, by means of its organization and activities it has more of a military character rather than being political. Today, there is a political branch of PKK, named DEHAP, now transforming itself into DHT due to some internal conflicts between Kurdish separatists, which is a legal party and ideologically on the same line as PKK. A "political party" would not need a legal/political branch, would it? AldirmaGonul 16:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I take the point although the PKK would probably argue that they are a revolutionary, actionist, political party of the ANC/PLO type (not that I see it that way, but that's what they would argue). Also the relationship between the PKK and DEHAP/former SHP/HADEP/DHT/whatever-they're-called-this-week is less organic than between Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army or ETA and Batasuna, and has become rather more strained in the past number of years due to the on-off ceasefire, etc.
I think the listing is reasonable without an NPOV warning. Gerry Lynch 13:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Given the fact that any organization can argue that they are political party, and using the words related to politics would not make them political party. I'm confused if Gerry Lynch is supporting the claim that PKK is a political party? His response reads like disagrees to this claim, without saying so. I have not seen any referance to PKK as a political party and it should not be listed as so. This is a disregard to other Kurdish political parties which work under legal terms. It has to be taken out from this list.--tommiks 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the current organization of the article better. However, the information listed is incomplete, sometimes inaccurate, and dirty. I will try to fix these problems if everybody is happy with the current shape. Regarding PKK, I believe that the current title "Illegal organizations" is a better description, and could be supported by a note stating these organizations declare themselves as parties, and other illegal groups could/should also be listed. Particularly, for PKK, we could include a brief note on the ties between PKK and the HEP-to-DHT series. AldirmaGonul 19:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how PKK calls itself or someone else calls it. It's not a registered party in the country therefore it has no space in this article.

How does the categorization works?[edit]

I think the ideology section for the parties is ridiculously inconsistent. What were the objective criterias used in this categorization? Why MHP is fascist while DTP is not? Why CHP's ideology is militarism? SHP says it is a social democrat party, why is it listed as socialist???

"Workers' Party (İşçi Partisi) Maoist, nationalist"

"Republican People's Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi), Social Democrat"

Is it how parties define themselves or what?

CHP considers itself as left-wing[edit]

It is clearly stated in its constitution.

Fair use rationale for Image:Dp logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Dp 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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AKP = Islamism?[edit]

How come? I would say it's more central than Islamistic. Nowhere in AKP's constitution it says that it's "islamistic"... --85.176.237.6 10:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hyp logo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Hyp logo.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 05:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DSP Logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:DSP 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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

While editing this page please talk about the facts, not personal opinions. In a secular country, for example, there cannot be parties having religious ideology; even though you believe a party has a tolerance for a certain religion that is still a personal view, not the fact. Be responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadsaved (talkcontribs) 23:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Changes Required[edit]

There are several problems with the list of the Turkish political parties. First of all, the number of political parties in Ottoman/Turkish history is about 330; so the list is incomplete. Second, the division of the parties between major and minor ones is arbitrary. Having a single representative in the parliament (who actually participated in the elections as an independent candidate) does not make a party major. Moreover the relevant elections (2007 general) and parliamentary term (23rd) are not indicated in the tables. Third, the list of banned parties is incomplete and erroneous. For instance the Progressive Republican Party was banned by an extraordinary court in 1925, not by the Constitutional Court that was established in 1961! Fourth, one can not limit itself with the self-declaration of a party while describing its ideology. For example AKP has Islamist roots, so does most of its MPs. Stating both self-declarations (that might be absent) and objective categorizations is a better idea. Disputes over categorizations can be addressed here on the talk pages. And finally it might be at least politically correct to list illegal political parties in another article.

I propose to split the article into two: The list of active political parties in Turkey and the chronological list of political parties in Turkey (A third list is also needed about the political parties in the Ottoman Empire.).

I'm looking forward for some discussion before proceeding with edits. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • There are too many errors in the article. In the introduction it says that only parties that received more than 10% of the votes are called major party. But among the seven parties which are listed in the table four of them haven't even attended the election . The article must explain this contridiction. And then, while a party with % 0.15 vote is shown in the table of major parties another party with % 5.41 is shown as a minor party. Does this mean that 0.15 > 5.41 ? Obviously the naming of the table is in error. A more realistic name of the table may be the parties represented in the parliament. A third error; Freedom and Solidarity party has no seats in parliament at all. And of course the list incomplete. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Political position[edit]

In the table, there is a colum of Ideology and one other column for political position. I think ideology shows the political orientation and the political position column is redundant. I'll try to call the recent contributers to discuss the issue. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)