Talk:Nation Alliance (Turkey)

Province capitals
In the sidebox percentage of the alliance in the political offices are shown. However I failed to see the percentage of the municipalities in the in the provice capitals. (other tahn the metropolitan municipalities like Burdur, Yalova, Osmaniye etc.) Is it included in the district municipalities? I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey! I'm not entirely sure if I know what you are referring to here. The sidebox shows the number of seats the four alliance partners hold at different levels of government. The numbers given in this article are only the sum of seats as provided on the articles of each individual political party; the parameters are the same as for all other Turkish parties. If what you want is to change the infobox to include the provincial capital city councils as a separate parameter, then that is something that you will have to bring up with the wider WikiProject Turkey community. Though if I am misinterpreting your original comment, then please let me know. :)  — Μαρκος Δ   09:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

İYİ Party and its classification on the political spectrum
I dont know how people differentiate between Center-Right and Right Wing, and Right-Wing from Far-Right

Im taking a look at this article in politico(https://www.politico.eu/article/the-turkish-marine-le-pen-meral-aksener-president-erdogan-politics/) about the founding of the İYİ Party, and I dont know how people take people associated with the MHP formerly, party members themselves have espoused philosophies associated with Alparslan Türkeş(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alparslan_T%C3%BCrke%C5%9F). there are comments from the leader of the Party, referring to Kurds and "Armenian seeds", she has a brutal record of comments surrounding Kurds and Armenians, I dont know why the party isnt listed as center to Right wing(at the very least). People are attempting to whitewash the ideological underpinnings, and people seem to be pretending that the MHP and Grey Wolves have no connection to the Party, when many are Grey Wolves members and the party is made up of Former MHP people.

Midgetman433 (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, this is not the place for this discussion. The information here is based on that on the party's main article. In other words, you will have to bring it up at the main İyi Party page, and reach a consensus there before making a change. I agree with you on many points, but again, this is not the right place to discuss it.  Μαρκος Δ   18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

>"The information here is based on that on the party's main article. In other words, you will have to bring it up at the main İyi Party page, and reach a consensus there before making a change."

I feel like you are arbitrarily making these decisions, other parties in this alliance are listed as far right, the parties in the other alliance are listed as Right-Wing and Ultra-Rightwing, yet, none of those classifications come from the party websites, or self characterizations, but for some reason you want to make an exception for the IYI party. It makes no sense to be that a Party Associated with the Grey Wolves(and this is undeniable) and a party where the party leader has made comments about Kurds and Armenians could in any shape not be labeled as a right wing party. Midgetman433 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I know it is late, but since you are still active over here on the encyclopedia I think you’ll notice this reply, though I don’t know if you still hold these views;

I took a look at the article you’ve linked, and I’ll begin from the Gray Wolves-İYİ association remark you made as it is the easiest to explain.

[-1.] Some people, usually those who are not too keen on Turkish politics, or are left-leaning and against general nationalist tendencies (only goes for Turkey in this case/logic), seem to not also acknowledge that the Gray Wolves are generally very religious Islamist nationalist-conservatives. Though just like how diverse Turkish nationalism is, yes there are many factions within the group, though almost entirely they are religiously motivated and have mixed Islamic tendencies with Turkic nationalism. Meaning these people are not necessarily Kemalists, nor fond of Atatürk. Even if they are somehow fond of him, they surely are not Kemalist or truly support secularism/the idea of laïcité in Turkey. I mean, they are responsible for the attempted assassination of the Pope in ‘81. Not only limited to that.

And, if you don’t know already, the İYİ Party is openly Kemalist, thus secular-irreligious-less religious Turkish nationalists. Which; the Gray Wolves are not fond of those kind of nationalists.. probably would even kill them because they are “Leftists”.

Yes, they do campaign with populist sayings to draw religious voters, and are surely gaining a lot from that, but their main stance is logically and officially clear. Seculars, Kemalists. Secular national conservatives you could say too, they also have a significant say within the party.

Can this change as a result of its fast and (maybe) uncontrollable growth? Such as AKP and modern MHP dissidents joining the party? Yes, it has already begun, but it will get more noticeable. Right now? Not much.

And yes they do come from an Islamist, conservative ultra-nationalist party, but the MHP was filled with all kinds of ideologies as it was basically representing all of Turkish nationalism under one strong banner, as it was the stable and most promising banner back then. (Now we have Zafer, IYI, etc etc)

But just as a reminder, reading their party program/manifesto also clearly shows they are for full EU-integration & NATO, as long as it does not clash with Turkish interests under the new government/system, which Turkey would likely follow a more regional-imperialism then more than it being international, such as right now. (e.g; Africa!)

[-2.] I completely agree that the whole political alignment thing (Extreme left, centre, extreme right, yaduhhh) is very very confusing and generally wrong on the encyclopedia, but the Good party currently fits “Centre” to “Centre-right” very well, in encyclopedia standards too. They support a more liberal economy, and a much more liberal society while also having a secular nationalist stance.

(Extra) Turkish nationalism today is basically based around getting away from the Middle East, and more close into Eastern/Southern Europe or Caucasia while maintaining Turkish nationalist standards in a high level, this could be such as getting closer to Hungary, Ukraine etc, or just the EU and NATO. Or even, a more isolating policy, such as the idea of a “Anatolia and Thrace” based neutral Turkey.

But again, Turkish nationalism in my opinion is just beginning to get diverse. Over the course of the next years, we could see a very nationalistic Turkey integrated into Europe that completely supports being aligned with Europe against the Middle East.

It is really weird. Just like how the CHP is social-democrats but wanna send off immigrants, y’know. (End ofxtra)

[-3.] Like I said I looked into the article with an interesting title, and I don’t know what you mean by the lady referring to Kurds and Armenians as “seeds”? She only stated that the PKK is an “Armenian offspring”, which not sure what she means by that, but I assume she means that Armenia is okay with allowing the PKK? I don’t know if that is brutal, but what is brutal is the denial of genocide that shouldn’t come as a shock at this point you know? I mean it is Turkey? Isn’t every political party in Turkey in that thought.. that isn’t gonna make their political alignments much different, e.g they might support better relations with Armenia but still deny genocide. Works like that.

And I didn’t come across a brutal comment made against Kurds? Except against the PKK, YPG, etc etc. Unless you are aligning the armed and militant PKK with all of Kurdish people? They are considered a terrorist organization by the EU and NATO (on paper obviously), and surely definitely by Turkey. Of course there would be harsh remarks against such group who has been in war with that country the politician is based in and took out terror attacks within it, of course if you mean the PKK. Because I didn’t see any referrings to Kurds as “seeds”, and they were the only thing coming to my mind in this case.

But please link me more of the source about her other past remarks, I wanna look into it.

[-5.] I can’t make any statements on Türkeş as I am not very informed about him. All I know nationalists (even seculars) like him, though from experience it is usually the conservative nationalists.

And I think this would be a perfect, civil discussion on the Good Party article.

And looking at the party’s statements today, and the lady’s (Akşener), such as in a recent one she mentioned in-response to the president that seeing Kurds or any other ethnicities within Turkey as lesser-citizens is disgusting and unacceptable and that it will end under their leadership.

I mean logically this makes them look like they are “for everyone” (Maybe not the refugees), but at the same time you have some (wrong) points that have altered versions which are more correct on describing IYI’s position.

Only time will tell, but with current, most general and most generally reliable knowledge this is what we have in hand.

Have a good day! Imastool (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

“Turkish nationalism”, & the removal of the large info-table box of supporting parties
I believe the removal of that table was necessary as it was unnecessarily large and not needed to be there (could have just been explained with text, like now), and as the parties are quite minor parties they do not have any major effect on Turkish politics but rather just act as quite small political representation.

As for the “Turkish nationalism” debate I came across in this article, I don’t think it is logical to add nationalism in if there is already Kemalism (Out of 4 parties, 3 openly identify as such, thus overwhelmingly making it more dominant within the alliance) of, because Kemalism has Turkish nationalism in-rooted within it in the first place. And the fact that Turkish nationalism is very very diverse, with many branches, just plain “Turkish naitonalism” would not fit, as Kemalism represents their approach much better.

This is why I created an “affiliations within” section (name can change or whatever), and in there, the more minority and less-majority ideologies/views within the alliance can be mentioned there. I put “Civic nationalism”, as; -Though these parties identify as, and sound/look quite nationalist for “more western european standards”, their stance is much much more soft compared to other parties in Turkey who identify as nationalist. The CHP specially, though the Good and DP parties take a Kemalist/Secular national-conservative (already included separately) stance, the SP (SADT) takes a religious-nationalist stance.

And considering that the CHP and Good parties overwhelmingly dominate these 2 other parties within the party, I’d say it is better to just consider it as “Civic nationalism”. Turkish nationalism is just too diverse, and can be taken/be viewed as differently by each individual.

What do you think? Imastool (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

+The table I saw as something just trying to make the article look “more expanded”, so.. Imastool (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nation Alliance–Table of Six merger
The Table of Six is not really another separate organization, the Nation Alliance just added two new members and is promising political changes upon their coming to power. The Table of Six article does not add much new information, and would do better as a section of the Nation Alliance article. Benlittlewiki (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support; add as a section.
 * Beshogur (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support; It would be better to merge them in this article. Werg57 (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support same
 * Panam2014 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Table of Six is only represtented by the leaders of these parties. It is more like the executive body of this alliance. I am neutral towards a merger.Current status doesn't seem problematic to me. The Outsider (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Islamism is part of their ideology too
Felicity party has joined this alliance, therefore due to their part within the alliance islamism plays a role among them. 80.131.58.157 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Weasel words like "post-Erdogan democratic transition"
It seems this article is written from a perspective sympathetic to its topic. Even if it is true that the Erdogan regime is responsible for democratic backsliding, the charged language at the bottom of the introduction has no place in an encylopedia article... 2601:189:8000:55D0:A8F6:F76:FF82:4598 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Islamism--not a political position? Really?
So, how is Islamism not a political position? The article for it on Wikipedia calls it a political ideology, and one can easily find a number of academic- and non-academic sources classifying Islamism as a political position. I assume, however, that @Beshogur argues Islamism is not a political position because it does not fit into the left-right political spectrum, but if we read the Wikipedia page for political spectrum, we see that issues such as the role of tradition and religion also constitute a political position. So, unless it is particularly mentioned on any Wikipedia guideline that a party's "political position" is strictly defined by where it stands on the left-right axis, it must be mentioned that Saadet's political position is Islamism. Kolekant (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean compared to left or right, it is not a position. Obviously Saadet has Islamist tendencies. Beshogur (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)