Talk:Good Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Integrity of the institutions of the republic as a raison d'être of this party[edit]

The integrity of the institutions of the republic (in particular the judiciary) has been touted by this party as well as narrated by many top sources as one of or even the main raison d'être of this party. I am fully aware that any articulation of doubt about the integrity of institutions in Turkey is a topic that incites fierce emotions among some editors. However, please do not dilute Wikipedia standards by trying to delete this major aspect. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The deletion wasn't intentional and as you say - very important aspect of the party. Thanks for correcting. Nub Cake (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kemalism v Atatürkism[edit]

@Nub Cake: party's claim is not important. We should respect the title of the page. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Party's claim is not important'?! I'm pretty sure it is, given that this article is about the party... Nub Cake (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nub Cake: for example Front national claims that it is not a far right party but according to the sources, it is it. We should respect the title of the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the party's preference for 'Atatürkism' as opposed to 'Kemalism' is nowhere near as controversial or contested. So rather than 'respecting the title of the article', perhaps it would be to respect actual information. Nub Cake (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: have you got an opinion ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what is meant by respecting the title of the page. Self-descriptions are rarely acceptable for political parties though, as per the mention of the FN above. Number 57 22:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split from[edit]

As I have explained, it is misleading to present the "party" to be split from MHP just because the leader and majority of delegates are former MHP members. Substantial part of delegates are from other parties like CHP, DSP, DP and smaller parties, some also being new in the political arena. Party is a party of dissidents from many established parties, led by a MHP dissident, with former MHP members composing a majority. But, stating the party itself is split from MHP is like dismissing the other half of the party and its members. Especially when party underlines strictly that they are not a successor of any party but a whole-new movement. Berkaysnklf (talk), 7 November 2017, 20:57 (UTC)

@Number 57: @Nub Cake: @Berkaysnklf: The information is sourced.[1][2] Split doesn't mean it is it successor. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014: I don't see those articles call the party a split from the MHP? I also agree with @Berkaysnklf: and think that this is pretty much incorrect. Junk2711 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" This resulted in a major split within the national movement party, since Bahceli campaigned in support of the transition. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that is saying there was a split within the MHP, as in a disagreement between its members. It isn't saying the new party itself is a split from the MHP. I did see the word being used but in what I think is in a different meaning. The other article says "the party from which Ms Akşener and her allies split" which I interpret as more like the party they left. So after these people split from the MHP, they didn't start a party on their own, instead they came together with those from the CHP too. I think the way it is now is restricting in that sense. That's how I see it, hope it makes sense. --Junk2711 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Former Interior Minister of Turkey launches party to challenge Erdogan". 28 October 2017.
  2. ^ "Good move, or just good intentions? - James in Turkey". 25 October 2017.

Requested move 27 June 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: This is not the correct way to start a RM discussion. This should be closed and re-opened with a new template In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


İyi Party → İYİ Party – As per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NCPARTY and MOS:TM Nub Cake (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A user recently changed the name of the article from "İYİ Party" to "İyi Party". While I think most would agree that it is already difficult to choose a name for this article, I think we should revert to the all-caps "İYİ" spelling. The original Turkish name of the party is, of course, not actually "İyi Party", and the reason why we chose to go with this on English Wikipedia is that İYİ is widely seen as a reference to the Kayı tribal flag, which has long been used in Turkish nationalist circles. The term "İYİ" in this context thus has a double meaning, but that is not clearly enough emphasized with the change to simply "İyi". "İyi" has no relation with the symbol at all. Changing the name from "İYİ" to "İyi" defeats the whole point made of the name's similarity to the symbol, and thus also the point of using this version of the name at all, as opposed to using "Good Party", for example. I suspect the user who did the name change does not really understand the extent to which the tribal flag led to the party adopting this name. Again, we should revert to "İYİ", and I'll do that soon unless there are objections. — Μαρκος Δ 16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the response on this User:Μαρκος Δ. I was the user who renamed it to "İyi Party", and am aware of the intention behind spelling it using capitals. That said, we have policies surrounding the naming of articles (the relevant ones are MOS:TMRULES and WP:TITLEFORMAT). On a case-by-case basis, we follow the conventions that are used by independent, reliable sources. In this case, nearly all of the third party sources that I came across (e.g. newspapers, websites with editorial oversight, etc.) spell it "İyi" rather than "İYİ", despite the fact that it seems to miss the point (and note that I kept "İYİ" in the lead following MOS:TM – this part of the lead could certainly be expanded to explain the connection to the flag if you have a reliable source, either as a very brief inline note, or more expansively as a footnote). That said, it might be helpful to get some third opinions, maybe at the Village Pump or WT:MOSTM (for the record, I sort of want you to be right, as anything that might help opposition parties in Turkey right now seems like a good thing! Perhaps check some of the other examples of Trademarks from corporations that don't follow sentence case if you want to make a strong argument that "İYİ" conforms to policy? But ultimately, Wikipedia as a whole has to be neutral, and apply policies in an evenhanded way, so unless there's a good argument based on policy it's unlikely to stick. Good luck!) ‑‑YodinT 15:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct way to start a RM discussion. This should be closed and re-opened with a new template In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Wikipedia name conventions aside, the name of the party is İYİ Party. Since this is an article about the İYİ Party, then our number one responsibility as editors who wish to give credible and impartial information is to at least get the party's name right. I'm absolutely sure that for every news source or website you can give that uses 'İyi' rather than İYİ, I can name twice as many that say the opposite. In any case it does not matter, as Article 1 of the party's constitution declares the party's name to be 'İYİ Party', and thus, I don't really see why we're even arguing about this. It is not our place, or Wikipedia's place, to define or disagree with the very thing we're creating an article about (and I suppose there are many wikipedia guidelines to support this). With that, I'll be changing the page name back with the hope that this problem doesn't waste our time any longer. Many thanks. Nub Cake (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for coming here to discuss! There is indeed a policy about this, but it doesn't say what you want it to say: read Wikipedia:Official names (along with MOS:TM if you haven't already). I would also recommend reading WP:BRD – your moving of the page was bold (that's ok), I reverted the article back to "İyi Party", so now we need to establish a WP:CONSENSUS on the topic before any further changes to the article title are made (be careful not to WP:CANVAS to try to get the result you want – WP:Requested moves might be the best place to do this). If you try to move the page again in the meantime it may be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. For your claims regarding independent reliable sources that "I can name twice as many that say the opposite" – please do so to back your argument up. ‑‑YodinT 21:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you want to go full WP:LAWYER, let's go full WP:LAWYER. I definitely agree on your point about needing consensus. Unfortunately for you, consensus already exists in that two editors in this discussion support the use of the name İYİ as opposed to yourself, the only editor who proposes otherwise. Crucially, the two editors in favour of the change have compelling arguments for doing so as discussed above (see WP:CONLEVEL), as opposed to your counter-arguments, which I would argue represent a misunderstanding of Wikipedia naming guidelines (explained below). Thus, your attempt to involve external editors despite a consensus already being established is an act of WP:GAME (and WP:FILIBUSTER in particular). In short, your revert is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, your justification attempt an act of WP:LAWYERING, and hence, your actions as a whole are WP:DISRUPTIVE. It appears you have missed the most important Wikipedia:Official names policy in this case, namely WP:NCPARTY, which is the relevant naming guideline for a political party such as İYİ. The guideline states, and I quote:
  • The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred
  • Additionally, MOS:TM states: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one
Both of these come back to the issue of reliable sources, of which I alleged that twice as many exist for İYİ than İyi. Of course I'm not going to list every single one for your satisfaction, but what we can do is do a general google search for the number of English sources that exist for each. Searching for English news articles entitled 'İYİ Party' yields about 131,000. Since google searches cannot be case sensitive, no exact result for a search for 'İyi Party' exists, so I can't prove that twice as many sources exist for İYİ rather than İyi. But, if you search 'İyi Party' and take a look at the first 3 results pages, only 3 of the 30 results actually use 'İyi Party'. The rest all use the capitalised version İYİ. Furthermore, the three sources using 'İyi' spell it wrong, so are hardly 'credible sources'. So I would like to revise my original claim that I could find twice as many sources that use 'İYİ' rather than 'İyi'. I can in fact find 10 times more sources that use 'İYİ' rather than 'İyi'. Hence, we can conclude:
  • The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country (in scholarly works and in the news media), is İYİ and not 'İyi'. As per WP:NCPARTY, İYİ is therefore preferred.
  • The google search of sources reveal, at a 90% confidence level, that 'İyi' is not a style already in widespread use, and hence does not satisfy the criteria within MOS:TM.
Thus, by the powers vested in us editors under WP:CONSENSUS and in accordance to the guidelines WP:NCPARTY and MOS:TM, I am hereby seeking administrator approval to revert your edit back to İYİ Party and rest my case. I hope I don't have to respond to any more acts of WP:LAWYERING, WP:GAME, WP:FILIBUSTER or WP:DISRUPTIVE from you again. It has been a pleasure wasting hours on this with you. Nub Cake (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct way to start a RM discussion. This should be closed and re-opened with a new template In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Whoa, calm down. To briefly reply to your points... 1. WP:COMMON was (and is) pretty much my complete argument (let's look at this more closely if you choose to take this to Requested moves as I suggest) 2. two editors does not a consensus make (check out WP:PNSD) – for example, during the discussion the consensus here seems to have shifted from "İYİ is the official name!" (and ignoring policies) to "the most commonly used name for the party used in reliable sources should be used!" (we're on the same page :) ). And please, assume good faith (I had and am trying to do so in my reply to you!) ‑‑YodinT 09:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-right[edit]

@Helper201: I thought I would start this section since I feel this has come up between others in the past too. The reason I put 'reportedly' is that there seems to be no basis for the centre-right description other than the centre-right background of many members. Maybe I just haven't seen this so correct me if I'm wrong. In addition, the article[1] was published the day the party was founded, so unless they got their hands on the party program beforehand, there is absolutely no basis for them to claim the party is centre-right, contradicting the party itself. I also do not have full access to the article so maybe someone who does can point out if there actually is a reference to the party program or something else for this claim. --Junk2711 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midgetman433 and Μαρκος Δ: we have lots of reliables sources for right wing. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Nationalist forms new party to challenge Erdogan. The Sunday Times. Author - Hannah Lucinda Smith. Published 25 October 2017. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
Like I said in on the Millet talk page, I don't mind "right-wing". My point was that the party's position in that article has to be the same as its position in this one. Still, you have to remember that Turkish politics in general is very nationalist, and that the degree to which parties are nationalist does not overlap with their placement on the left-right spectrum. Traditionally, CHP (center-left) and MHP (far-right) are strongly nationalist and even xenophobic with regards to minorities, while HDP (left-wing) and AKP (right-wing) are more tolerant of counter-culture. Considering İYİ is more liberal on domestic social issues than AKP, and closer to the center-left CHP than to the far-right MHP on the nationalist "scale", it's easy to see how they could also be placed in the center. Even if there are lots of sources for "right-wing" (mostly in non-Turkish media), there are just as many sources for "centrist" (mostly in Turkish-speaking media). Don't forget that the party was, for a long time, nicknamed the Merkez Demokrat Parti in the Turkish media. By Turkish standards, at least, it is not necessarily right-wing. Μαρκος Δ 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Μαρκος Δ: According to french and lebanese it is a right wing ("droite") party. I think we should add all of the POV. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet here and here are Turkish newspapers calling them centrist. "Center-right" is, in my opinion, without a doubt the best description. Μαρκος Δ 21:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Μαρκος Δ:Writing "center to right wing" is a good idea. Turkish sources are no more legitimate than others to talk about the party. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That could have worked, had it not been for the fact that we avoid using the terms like that. Whenever we say "[position] to [position]", it only stretches to the political position that is situated in its immediate vicinity. For example, "center-left to left-wing" is acceptable, but "center-left to center-right" for example makes no sense. 15 of 21 İyi Party deputies come from the center-left CHP. So, should we then say that İYİ is "center-left to right-wing"? No, of course not! Either we stick with the current"center to center-right", or we simply write "catch-all", as in the case of the Millet alliance. There is also the option to leave the ideology field blank. Μαρκος Δ 23:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Μαρκος Δ: It have no sense but it is not our business, but the media business. I have not problem to write "center to right wings". We could also write big tent. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014: 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. I feel that there is an attempt to soften the image of the party internationally to a non Turkish audience by some of its supporters who had been the first create the article and have carefully managed its image on english speaking websites. The other user is citing Turkish newspapers in his reasoning for "center" but there are other Turkish newspapers that have classified it as far-right or right-wing as well. I feel an outside more neutral perspective from Politico is more telling of the party's politics, I dont see any "centrism" around the hostile statements made surrounding Armenians and Kurds. the IYI party broke from the MHP(over cooperating with the AK Party), and when they were getting sworn in, one of the MPs kissed the MHP leader's hand. The Party broke over disagreements over the AK party cooperation, they didnt suddenly abandon Alparslan and his ideals. Midgetman433 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament ecosystem and general dynamics[edit]

Grand National Assembly of Turkey with [MHP, AKP] CHP, IYI (blue), HDP.

We see MHP and CHP members joining in the Iyi parti.

  • Are there AKP or HDP politicians making the move ?
  • What are the relationship with HDP and the left, unifying or confrontational ?

Yug (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yug: As far as I know, there aren't any AKP or HDP politicians who have joined. I would say they have a unifying relation with the left in terms of the messages they are giving out and of course the official move from the CHP. They haven't really said much about the HDP but I doubt they will be confrontational. Iyi Parti and Aksener's whole thing is about being positive and just 'good' in general. For example, she won't even let the crowd boo the AKP at rallies saying "I will take care of them". Also, an MP from the HDP says they support the transfer from CHP to Iyi Parti as it is the right thing to do democratically.[1] --Junk2711 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight. I just redrawn the parliament chart and I'am stun to see that 2/3 of the parliament is pro AKP hard right. As allegiances are changing a lot these past days, it may be interesting to monitor those in coming weeks. Yug (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good summary of the situation. Interesting to see what will happen. --Junk2711 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the diagram as another MP from MHP representing Bursa has joined İYİ. Another party to watch is Felicity Party. Secular opposition (CHP and İYİ) are getting them involved actively as well in order to divide remaining conservative AKP votes which they will not be able to win. Akşener will definitely run alone. CHP still looks for alliance opportunities but most likely they will have their own candidate for presidential election and look for alliances with parties outside the parliament for legislative elections. SP (Felicity) will also probably run with their own candidate and look for an alliance (possibly with CHP) to secure place in the parliament for legislative elections. Looking at this picture, Akşener will most likely go to second round facing Erdoğan. In that scenario, CHP(pro-EU, secular), SP(Political Islam, eurosceptic), DP(conservative democracy) has agreed to support İYİ(pro-EU, secular) and Akşener. Keeping my fingers crossed. --Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yug, the reason why İYİ is attracting deputies and voters primarily from CHP and MHP is that these parties are all rooted in different types of Turkish nationalism. CHP is left-wing nationalist, while MHP is right-wing nationalist, and they both idolize Atatürk as a national figure despite somewhat diverging views on his later domestic reforms. This admiration is something they also share with İYİ. Relatively speaking, and by Turkish standards, İYİ could be considered a centrist nationalist party, positioned between CHP and MHP. Due to a shared 'atatürkist' foundation, İYİ gets along well with CHP. Conversely, İYİ's natural rivals are HDP (since that party is Kurdish nationalist) and the AKP (since that party is pro-RTE and Islamic-rooted. To answer your question, the relationship with the HDP is non-existent; İYİ stated they would not join Millet if HDP was to become a member as well. And I'd be surprised to see AKP figures switching to İYİ, considering the latter was formed explicitly to take on the former. The left-right divide is not as trong in Turkey as in many Western countries; there is a stronger divide over ethnic and religious cleavages. Μαρκος Δ 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
15 MP from opposition party CHP joined İyi, secured participation in next election for this group around April 22[2], and then returned to CHP.[3] The İyi Party is back to 6 representatives. I really don't know how to make sense of this at it seems to divide the opposition MORE. Yug (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aside, the İYİ Party vows to reopen access to Wikipedia if elected. Yug (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ HDP’den İYİ Parti’yle anlaşan CHP’ye bir övgü bir eleştiri. Diken. Published 22 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  2. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/iyi-party-joined-15-mps-approved-run-turkey-polls-180422145859636.html
  3. ^ http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/chps-15-resigned-deputies-return-from-iyi-party-131622

Number of members[edit]

According to this ref [1], 15 members of the Iyi Party left and rejoined the CHP; thus the IYI Party has only six members in parliament. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New move discussion[edit]

23:34, 21 January 2018‎ Yodin (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,808 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Yodin moved page Talk:İYİ Party to Talk:İyi Party: following MOS:TM: most reliable sources seem to use "İyi", and we should follow this, regardless of the "official" stylisation) (undo | thank)
18:54, 16 June 2018‎ Nub Cake (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (21,414 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Nub Cake moved page Talk:İyi Party to Talk:İYİ Party over redirect: It's not 'stylised' as 'İYİ Party'. This is the official name of the party as per their constitution (http://iyiparti.org.tr/Assets/pdf/iyi_parti_tuzugu.pdf)) (undo | thank)
Thanks to Dekimasu for closing the above. Gentlemen, January to June is five months. A bit too late to be simply reverted. @Nub Cake: if you wish to propose a move, supported by English sources, please do so below with a new template. I note however that CNN doesn't uses caps, and Hurriyet does. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Energy policy?[edit]

Hello I am improving Hydroelectricity_in_Turkey#Politics. Could anyone add the Good Party policy to that section? I cannot find it on their website. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political position[edit]

Should we change the political position to "centre to right-wing"? There are multiple reliable sources that explicitly and specifically call the party right-wing, such as:

Helper201 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Covering the bases.
    (Summoned by bot) No - why change anything? WP:RECENTISM - and one of the cited sources states: The bloc includes main opposition centre-left Republican People’s Party (CHP), the right-wing Good Party (IYI) and ultraconservative Felicity Party (SP), with backing from the minor centre-right Democrat Party (DP). The only centre-right mention is the DP and in the US, Democrats lean <––thataway. Why even worry about a label? Focus on what actions are intended because that's what counts. Atsme 💬 📧 11:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) No - per Atsme and keep as is. Meatsgains(talk) 15:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) Maybe? - I'd like to see what the balance of peer-reviewed academic sources is, rather than relying on brief in-passing descriptions in news articles. I'm not sure I understand Atsme's second argument at all though, as the Turkish DP has no connection to the US DP other than the similarity in name, and the Turkish left-right spectrum isn't really commensurable with the US one. A cursory glance at Google Scholar results suggests that both "right-wing" and "center-right" are used in academic literature (and 'nationalist iyi party' is an even more common descriptor) but there's a fair amount of noise in those results. signed, Rosguill talk 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosguill - to clarify...I was a little unsure over the banner pointing to Politics, government, and law without specifically stating the change was exclusive to a single Turkish party, so I generalized my response a little more than may have been necessary; either way, it doesn't change my position based on the sources provided. Atsme 💬 📧 16:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, how does RECENTISM apply? The sources are from various dates. Many of them are from 2018, not all that recent. 2018 sources: Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, Kuwait Times, 2019: Middle East Eye, 2021: Reuters, 2022: Times of Malta. Its not like all or even most of these sources are from the last year. I don't see the reasoning or legitimacy of the rest of your argument or how it applies to any Wikipedia guidelines. If anything, it is a credit to the source that it clearly details various political positions of different parties and doesn't use binary left-right terms but distinguishes using centre-left, right-wing and centre-right. Helper201 (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting to basically change the party's position on the political spectrum to something quite different from the way it identified at founding in 2017, a few short years ago in the grand scheme. That is what I consider RECENTISM (see WP:10YT). I also agree with Rosguill in that we need more peer-reviewed academic sources before we can even begin to consider such a change. Atsme 💬 📧 03:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – We have plenty of citations from multiple different reliable sources spanning a number of years explicitly stating this claim. In fact, we have more citations that I have given here than what is given for centre-right in the infobox of the article, of which there was no clear consensus for adding. Panam2014 even advocated for "centre to right-wing" in the prior discussion on centre-right seen in one of the discussions above this one. It’s important to remember this party originated from a split in the Nationalist Movement Party, a right-wing to far-right party, as it was before the split and has been post-split; so, its unsurprising that this party could encompass a right-wing element, or could harbour this position to a degree. The Good Party's advocation for reintroducing the death penalty to Turkey is also something you would very rarely, if ever, see from a centre or centre-right party in Europe and I think exemplifies that the party is beyond simply just the moderate positions of centre and/or centre-right. Helper201 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further backing for right-wing from multiple other sources:

Helper201 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes The parties leader was compared to the right wing Marine le Pen from the start.Like Marine Le Pen in France, this unapologetic nationalist is a thorn in the side of the Turkish government. By politico. I don't see where recentism applies here.
Then the party split from the far-right MHP. At least the leader of the party campaigned to become the leader of the MHP but as this failed she founded her own, the Good Party.
And a source from one of the most vocal Armenian genocide deniers Ümit Özdag is an at least questionable source for the party being centre. He accounts for two of the 4 sources. The Euronews article mentions him claiming the party is centre.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support changing its position to "centre-right" with a note (like on the Italy of Values page). There are more sources for centre-right besides the Times article 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant0 what about centre-right to right-wing? There are more than enough reliable sources that explicitly and specifically call the party right-wing. Given the large volume of sources stating the party is right-wing I really don't think we should omit this position. I alone have been able to provide 10 different sources in total that call the party right-wing. Helper201 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be fine too since I wasn't able to find sources for centrism besides the ones that are already present in the article (which were published in 2017 and 2018 respectively). Vacant0 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Party&oldid=1206333431"