Wikipedia

Talk:Republican People's Party/Archive 1

< Talk:Republican People's Party
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Shadow4dark in topic The CHP
Archive 1

Organization

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there anyone who would like to help organize this page? Or else I will try to reorganize the data here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.192.75 (talk • contribs) at 22:27, April 26, 2006(UTC)
İndeed the page needs to be organized. Please go ahead...Hopefully more poeople wıll then joın ın. Bertilvidet 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"History" part and "The Party Today" part includes errors. I am a member of this party and know the reality much more accurate compared to those sending an ordinary edit. I wrote it as a sign above the text but it is erased.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.192.75 (talk • contribs) at 22:55, April 26, 2006(UTC)
Could you be more specific about what errors you see? LambiamTalk 00:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"It must be understood however, that this had very little to do with voters supporting CHP. Many were former DSP supporters who were angry at the economic crisis that many blamed on the Ecevit government. Also many DSP and ANAP supporters left these parties for AK party as did many MHP and Fazilet (now Saadet party) members."

This paragraph is fully nonsense. The original vote base of CHP is not the dissatisfied voters from DSP. Most DSP voters did not even go to the ballot, some of them voted for Young Party GP and some of them shifted towards AKP, but only "relatively" a few of them shifted towards CHP.

I do not think there was a shift from MHP to AKP, neither. MHP lost votes to Young Party, as did DYP and ANAP; but there was little shift from MHP to AKP.

It does not make any sense to shift voters from a nationalist party towards a moderate Islamist party. Also, 19,4% vote obtained by CHP does not show that it is losing strength. Turkey's 10% threshold has created this two-party system, and even AKP can lose a great deal of votes in the next election. You cannot predict what will happen in the next 6 months.


"Finally a coalition was formed (generally assumed under the force of hand of the army) between DSP-ANAP-MHP it was doomed to fail and a seemingly unimportant argument between Bülent Ecevit and Ahmet Necdet Sezer the president sent the Turkish stock markets into freefall, a political crisis followed causing the collapse of the coalition and elections to be held. (Actually the economic crisis was a result of the endless corruptions for which ANAP, DYP, DSP, RP, and MHP are responsible, therefore the Sezer-Ecevit argument only lighted the fire.)"

The collapse of the coalition was due to the resignation of half of the DSP deputies, in order to establish the YTP - New Turkey Party. The party then joined to CHP. Adding the deputies of DSP, MHP and ANAP, it was about 350 seats; a stable coalition. After the resignation of 60 DSP deputies, it fell to 290. There were also losses from MHP and ANAP, which reduced the support to about 270, below the required 276.

13:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I will rewrite the page totally from the beginning, due to numerous errors and wrong comments added without any citation to valid resources. In addition, I will divide the "History" part in different periods, starting from party's roots up until today. Aegeansun 19:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I will also change the "Party Today" section, which is written in a biased, wrong view. Aegeansun 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Party Today part

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 1960-1980 era has lots of mistakes, especially after 1965. In addition, there are lots of grammatical, logical and spelling errors. Party today section is really confusing and must be written again. Those sections should be revised. 139.179.192.75 10:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

History Revisionism

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where did the previous, long version of the article go? Ottoman Reference seems to have deleted it on his/her (probably his) own. I suggest returning to the previous version of the article. 85.98.71.245 16:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Name

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The word "republican" in the title corresponds to "cumhuriyetçi", as opposed to the word in the actual title of the party, "cumhuriyet". I believe the name simply means that the party was founded with the republic and not during the imperial times. The title may need changing. 85.103.232.213 19:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Party history

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

What does the part from 1914 to 1923 indicate? It is simply useless. It is a tool to claim that CHP is the sole reputable successor to Turkish War of Independence. Also the section from 1923 is simply the history of the Republic of Turkey, written in a pro-CHP POV. For example, what does this sentence have to do with the history of CHP? "On August 5, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) and Latife Hanim got divorced." Or, this one? "On 10 November 1953, the corpse of Atatürk was transferred from Ethnographia Museum to Anitkabir, Atatürk's eternal resting location, in Ankara." Is this article about CHP or an Atatürk biography post-mortem? Also this sentence is never to be checked for its factual accuracy: "Even those who support Deniz Baykal would admit that the party would be much more successful with a different leader." Yes, we have a pro-CHP and anti-Baykal article. Behemoth 15:46, 8 May 206 (UTC)

The part from 1914 to 1918 includes the WWI, and WWI represents the conditions that contributed to the establishment of CHP. It is a historical fact that CHP is the successor to the ARMHC of the Sivas Congress, followed by the "First Group" in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. From this fact, one can also conclude that CHP has initiated the Turkish War of Independence. The difference between today's CHP and 1919-1980's CHP can also be discussed, but this does not refute that the history of Turkey and the history of CHP from 1918 to 1950 are identical. 139.179.192.75 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Marriage and divorce of Atatürk emphasizes the fact that the history of CHP has been embedded in Atatürk's life, since Atatürk was accepted as the "eternal chief" by CHP delegates after his death. Since I did not write or rewrite the sentence regarding Baykal, I will not comment on it. I am not satisfied with the "Party Today" section, therefore I will try to modify it. 139.179.192.75 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with Behemoth. The WWI section demonstrates the causes of "Turkish War of Independence", therefore it is crucial. Atatürk did not initiate this war spontaneously. It had a well-defined reason, and also concrete consequences stated within the article. If Behemoth is a supporter of a different party/ideology, it is not unusual for that person to question the neutrality of this article. Regarding Atatürk's marriage and divorce, I think they should stay in the article. His marriage and divorce had a great impact on the history of the Republican People's Party, and also his steps towards constructing the Civil Code and Gender Equality in Turkey. I suggest that those sentences are far too neutral. Aegeansun 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the ones claiming that the article is not neutral should have a look at the resources. One of them is Turkish Presidency, the others are Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and acknowledged historical novel "Su Cilgin Türkler". If you have a counter-argument, you should have sufficient support for your thesis. Otherwise it becomes invalid and refuted. Aegeansun 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The book you are referring to is a novel
I cannot answer all objections within a single sentence but I think, for example, the reasons given to keep the facts about marriage and divorce should be linked with personality cult. Yes, his marriage had a great impact on Gender Equality in Turkey, he divorced Latife with Islamic talaq-al salasah! And what about calling rebels of Menemen as "radical religious fascists"? This assertion is simply anachronistic and if you look for a political establishment akin to fascism at that time, this is Republican People's Party itself. What about calling Sheikh Said's men as "gangsters"? Is this NPOV too? "On 27 January 1937, Hatay's independence was accepted by the League of Nations in its Geneva meeting." Is this statement also claimed in the "acknowledged [let's say best-selling] historical novel"? If you'd like to depend your claims on a novel, this becomes a literary topic and I reccomend you to act accordingly. The article says nothing about internal conflicts within CHP such as the one between İş Bankası clique and Kadro Mecmuası, and strives to present CHP as if it was a monolithic structure under Atatürk. Nothing about opposition against Köy Enstitüleri and Toprak Reformu within CHP, to name some of the major internal schisms. In short, especially the part pertaining to the reign of Atatürk is simply useless and may well be transferred to an article named, say, Reforms of Atatürk. Also, the sections before the proclamation of Republic do not mention sufficient clues to manifest the claimed continuity that ended in CHP. All these sections are not competent with the integrity of the article and merely placed to serve a pro-CHP POV. Also this sentence, dear user Aegeansun (I think you are from İzmir), gives us the proof that you are inclined to push a pro-CHP POV: "If Behemoth is a supporter of a different party/ideology, it is not unusual for that person to question the neutrality of this article." Also, the references, I click on the weblinks but there is nothing about CHP's history. One is the website of the President, one is the website of Ministry of Culture, the other is a website featuring a legislative compendium. Nothing related to this article's particular assertions. Please cite the relevant resources. Behemoth 07:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC), re-edited 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC), re-re-edited 07:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If you know how to use internet, you can enter the web page of Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and click on History>Atatürk>Chronology links. In the Cankaya.gov.tr web page, you can click on the photos of the former presidents and find information on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Ismet Inönü, Celal Bayar, and so forth. Aegeansun 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Aegeansun 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "Su Cilgin Türkler", one can conclude that you have never even seen that book. Look at the references section at the end of the book: 226 different books, 22 periodicals and 8 eye witnesses. Whether the book is a best-seller or not, it is an acknowledged historical novel, written with the accumulation and experience of 30 years' research. Aegeansun 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Aegeansun 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am proud to be an Izmirian; and, as a member of CHP, I assert that I know CHP history much better than most people. As I said before, I did not have time to "touch" the "after 1980" part, and I left writing at 1965 because I could not have found resources to reflect that period. Aegeansun 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Aegeansun 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
At the Belgenet web page, there is sufficient information on CHP history, the dates and results of CHP Congresses, and shifts in CHP policies. Maybe Atatürk got married and divorced in an Islamic manner, reflecting the tendency of the time; but this shows that he had seen the negative results of this Islamic-style marriage and divorce, and the same person "and the same party" gave Turkish women the right to marry and divorce, participate in elections, and so on. Aegeansun 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Aegeansun 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Fascism and authoritarianism are different. If you had been a political science student, you would have understood what I meant. Menemen rebels are radical Islamist fascists, because the "official history" had been written that way. If you want to question the official history, nobody prevents you from doing that. And also, look at the meaning of "gangster" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. What does it say? "a member of a gang of criminals". Nobody can claim that Sheikh Said was innocent. He and his gang had commited a notorious crime against the republic, and they were a gang made up of his blind-folded followers. Aegeansun 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Aegeansun 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The book Aegeansun is referring to is a novel, based on historical facts. It is a work of fiction, and cannot be used as reference - the author's bias (it is within his rights, as this is a novel) is quite evident. I've written this only to point to (IMHO) a good critique of said novel: [|su cilgin turkler] . Justin Case 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just came across a great discussion here. What is happening? I really cannot comprehend why this discussion started. OK, the POV/dispute (or whatever) can stay over there, but I do not agree excluding Atatürk's revolutions from CHP. The ideology of CHP is Kemalism, and whatever we do, the history of CHP was shaped by Atatürk from 1919 until 1938. Atatürk did not prepare the revolutions, or reforms, everything by himself. He had a team, good or bad, but this was a cooperative work, open to contributions from party members or deputies. I detest Behemoth's labeling of CHP as "fascist". Our history instructors both in high school and in college had always reminded us the fact: "You cannot judge history from today's perspective, you must handle history within its own conditions." Also, I suggest changing the anti-Baykal part below the History part. And I also criticize Aegean(???) friend's stubborn and unusual writing style. You are not writing a history book, you must be open to change (if you claim to be a leftist). 139.179.192.75 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is "Don't remove the template"? Wikipedia is open to everyone. If you write such a sentence, this means you are trying to manipulate people's right to free speech. If you do not want your sentences to be changed, you can just go and start a web page with loads of discussions on your own. You cannot restrict people. 139.179.192.75 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not restricting anyone, but typically at Wikipedia the POV tag is supposed to stay up until the dispute is resolved. —Khoikhoi 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't write that "CHP is fascist". Please don't deviate the meaning of what I say. "...if you look for a political establishment akin to fascism at that time, this is Republican People's Party itself." That's what I said. CHP line of the era drew many similarities with fascism, in particular, corporatistic nationalism, often based on a racial rhetoric.

If you think that it is Mustafa Kemal's marital life that had affected some reforms, then you may also add the time when he was beaten by Kaymak Hafız at Mahalle Mektebi, which shaped his future aspirations for Tevhid-i Tedrisat. Sounds odd, isn't it? Well, Wikipedia is not a school textbook. Also, I don't understand the link between these websites and CHP history. Even a pro-CHP website (but dealing with CHP) would make more sense compared to the website of impartial President of the Republic and AK Parti Minister of Culture. If you claim Belgenet has some sources, cite them, not just create a link to the mainpage as if the sources are located on the main page. I didn't read that novel you are referring to, but I can remember Umberto Eco's novels, which are all "acknowledged" and written by an expert on linguistics and Middle Ages. However, no one at Wiki would try to base his/her claims on an Eco novel, say Baudolino for the Crusades, but we have a Baudolinoarticle, because after all, it's a novel. So, you may well create a Şu Çılgın Türkler article. Menemen rebels were not "Islamic fascists". This naming is merely anachronistic. Dervish Mehmed and his men were zealous Naqshbandis but the majority of the rebels were poor peasants severely hit by the drought. Even a Jewish vendour was hanged after Menemen Rebellion on grounds that he sold a rope to Dervish Mehmed's men. Sheikh Said was not a "gangster" nor his men were. Said was a Kurdish religious-tribal leader who started a rebellion against Ankara government and failed. He was not Al Capone, he was not even 50 Cent. "Nobody can claim that Sheikh Said was innocent." Usually, we don't use terms like "innocent" or "not innocent" when we comment on historical personalities. But if you have a particular hatred towards him, this is not the place to express it. Being a CHP member does not necessarily bring competent knowledge on the matter. For example, many scholars who studied CHP history and created "acknowledged" opus, e.g. Taha Parla, are not CHP members. Furthermore, this may bring an unwanted side-effect; you may start to think in the line of the "official party history" that becomes revised in each shift of policies, the greatest of which was, as you know well, ortanın solu when CHP began to see its entire historical heritage as "left-wing". Being proud of something is a good thing; proud of being from Izmir, proud of being a CHP member... Like how I am proud of being a Behemoth. However, we should also learn to be proud of being a Wikipedian. Being a Wikipedian brings a sense of responsibility, this is to work to have Wiki as a reputable source of information. To provide a NPOV is a major pillar of this effort. You may well be a proud CHP member and also a Wikipedian who tries to edit a neutral article. Worth giving a try! Behemoth 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Mahalle Mektebi and his marital life are mutually exclusive. His marital life had a great influence in the presidential tradition in Cankaya. Atatürk's Civil Code revolution might well have been initiated by his marriage and divorce. If his marriage was not only a religious but also a state-recognized marriage, he would not have divorced in such an easy way as well. Then this situation might have brought him towards introducing a modern civil code. Turkish Revolution History is not just trials and errors following one another, but I perceive this marriage had a great impact in the revolutions, therefore CHP history.
Wikipedia is not a school textbook, but it is not a forum that you can use in insulting a political party! Regarding the 1938-1950 era of CHP, most people assert "fascism" label for CHP. Nevertheless, history must be evaluated in its "own" conditions, NOT in today's conditions. What is regarded as fascist today was not defined as fascist in the first half of the twentieth century. Besides, Su Cilgin Türkler is not only a novel, it is thirty years' work of an invaluable author; and making comparisons between two unrelated bestsellers (I do not know if the latter is a bestseller or not) does not make your metaphor valid. As stated before, Su Cilgin Türkler reflects the perspectives of both sides, including some parts written based on a Greek character, and some other parts written based on a Turkish character; and it also includes hundreds of references to both Turkish and Greek resources. First read that book, or reviews written both criticizing and praising that book, then base your claims on a trustworthy resource to validate the fascist assertion over CHP.
If you know Turkish, you can just navigate and find the parts in which CHP congresses take place. If you do not know Turkish, it is not meaningful to ask for the actual page in which CHP take part. So I recommend, enter the Belgenet page, and confirm/refute whether the given parts of this article are there or not. I am sorry, Belgenet page is only in Turkish.
As a result, I will give a try to edit the article again and again, but of course in my own perspective. Nobody can be blindfolded; everyone has some personal ideas and-or feelings. We are human beings, not machines. Even neutralmost books have some hidden subjective evaluations in them. Therefore, being proud of a Wikipedian does not necessarily mean giving up all ideas outside. I think all party articles in Wikipedia has POV or dispute. Then let's just put the dispute tag in all party articles!
Lastly, I will not remove the 1914-1950 part that I have written based on valid resources. Meaningful or not, neutral or not, they are part of CHP history. This party has established the state I am living in, the army protecting me, the land I am living on, and the education system that has educated me. Even a MHP or DYP member acccepts the reality that CHP has established the multiparty democracy in Turkey, kept Turkey neutral in WWII, introduced the revolutions and reforms that Turkey had urgently needed. Therefore, since there is not a consensus on this part the dispute tag and the parts including between 1914-1950 can stay within the article together.

Aegeansun 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

About Elections Issue

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Democratic elections were held various times after the first constitutional monarchy was declared in 1876, and especially after the second in 1908 in Ottoman Turkey. And the first democratic elections after the republic was established were held in 1946, which ended up with CHP having the majority of the votes for, although the authenticity of this very first general elections of the republican era is highly disputed. Anyway, that's why I've made these recent edits there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuvvaci (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The elections held in 1946 in Turkey under the tutelage of CHP leader and self-proclaimed "National Chief" Gen. Inonu is as "democratic" as the elections held today in Zimbabwe under the "leadership" of "Anti-Imperialist Chief" Mugabe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.1.221 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely partizan and nonsence. Are you here to improve the page or make your own political view's propaganda.

Spelling, grammar, etc., and content

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article needs cleaned up badly. Content is a must, but form is also indispensable! This seems like quite an important article, I wonder why it remains deficient in several respects... Perhaps the number of English speakers concerned is too meager? I'll try to help. 64.174.68.114 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported facts

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I added the unreferenced tag at the end of July. Yet the contents of this article hasn't been improved. In fact additional unsupported facts have since been added. I will start removing items like:

"In addition, Democratic Party also oppressed other opposition parties; suppressing the media, and violating democracy."

"Even tough the military intervention is mostly welcomed by CHP members, CHP leader İnönü was strongly opposed to the coup."

"He was a respected person in the army but he was too old to show his power."

Mdozturk 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

removed some unsupported facts Mdozturk 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

These are not unsupported facts!!! First of all, it is not an uncommon fact that Democratic Party oppressed the opposition, sued many people of different beliefs than theirs. Also military intervention was opposed by Inonu, this is an historical fact. You can look it up in any history book of that time. I will add these sentences to the article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.148 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Social Democratic?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The lip service this party sadly pays to social democracy is not apparent in practice. Kemalism as it stands today is not a left-wing ideology. Its interpretation by its defenders is almost a verbatim definition of state nationalism. Ataturk was a very progressive and reformist leader, but today the Kemalist ideal promotes insularism, hiding behind secularism and laicism. Anybody conversant in Turkish politics should first take a brief look at the article on left wing here on Wikipedia, then see how it does not apply to political parties' agendas (such as this one) defining themselves as Kemalists. Justin Case 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Has anyone any interest in detailing this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.150.7 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Left-wing nationalism is a phenomenon by itself. You may like it or hate it, but it does exist. By "insularism" I assume you mean "rejection of EU membership" but the party actually supports the EU, only with some reservations. Also, Baykal (the previous leader) was widely accused of being right-wing (which was correct, to some degree) but under the current leader Kılıçdaroğlu, who is Kurdish and also a member of the Alevi minority sect, CHP has already taken a leftward turn. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The oldest political party?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The CHP was dissolved in 1980 and the name was banned. After that ban was lifted, in 1992, twelve years later, a party with that name was founded with almost entirely different cadre. How obvious is it that the "new" CHP is (a continuation/restoration) of the "old" CHP, and not a different party that reuses the name?  --Lambiam 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. The current leader of CHP is Deniz Baykal, who was a minister from CHP in the 70s. --213.1.50.183 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The oldest political party of Turkey is not CHP. It was "Ittihat ve Terrakki Firkasi" at Ottoman era and Communist Party of Tukey (1920) at Turkish Republic era. Information at the article about the chronology is totally wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.196.59 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Split the Article in Three

As it is in the Turkish wikipedia, the article should be splitted into three seperate articles. Since these three parties are three different political entites, both historically and officially.

In the other hand as stated above by Lambiam In Turkish, the name of the parties -which three of them all share (share only name not the ideologies etc.)- "Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi" which can be translated as "Republic People Party" or maybe "Republic People's Party" (the name is a gramatically mistaken in Turkish anyway!). But whatever the translated name is in English, well, it is not "Republican" ("Cumhuriyetçi" in Turkish).

so be Bold!

--78.162.191.184 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is more a quirk of the Turkish language. "Republic People's Party" sounds nonsensical in English. All international media refer to the party as "Republican People's Party." 212.253.32.195 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


POV

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This article, which apparently is written by a CHP faithful and a "National Chief" appeaser, has to be edited by an impartial editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.7.18 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

About 150 different editors have contributed to this article. The complaint is so broad that it is not helpful. There are 126 sentences divided over seven sections; are all POV?  --Lambiam 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the biggest POV is the reference to the CHP as being a "centre-left" party, or a "social democratic" one. As someone else questioned above, to anyone with knowledge of what social democracy is, this seems absurd. This is a centre-right, nationalist party. Kemalist ideology is not social-democratic, and it is certainly not left, or even left of centre. Could we have a discussion of this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.150.7 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see the comment above, under "Social Democratic?" section. CHP is indeed centre-left, albeit a quirky one. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

About the section local elections

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes, in 1994 local elections CHP received 4.6 %. But this figure doesn’t reflect the whole picture. Because in 1994 the votes of the very same party were shared between CHP and SHP. (CHP issued from SHP in 1992 and and merged with SHP in 1995. They were the same party divided because of constitutional barriers, which were cleared by the efforts of late Erdal İnönü) The total should be given as 18.1 %. (Well at least it parentheses.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the economic platform?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nothing about economic policies— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 22:03, June 16, 2013‎

Feel free to research that and add it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Republican People's Party (Turkey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republican People's Party (Turkey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Republican People's Party (Turkey)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Republican People's Party (Turkey)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

Reference named "auto1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

American English

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I fixed the AmE words to BrE. American English isn't the default when something isn't American. LeticiaLL (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


– Overwhelming primary topic (see below) (t · c) buidhe 14:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Here are the pageviews for all the articles titled "Republican People's Party"[1] This one gets far more views than the rest combined. In reliable sources, none of the other parties are mentioned in the first four pages of Google Scholar results[2] Considering long-term significance, this political party has played an important role in Turkish politics for over a century, governing it for much of that time. None of the other entries approach such significance independently or combined. (t · c) buidhe 14:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in line with the nom's arguments on usage and long-term significance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to split article into History of the Republican People's Party

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The history section of the article is very long, cumbersome to read, and contains some unnecessary information. I propose to make this section its own article, and shorten the history section in the main article. Benlittlewiki (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You already went forward with this, but I absolutely support this idea. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Energy policy?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello I am improving Hydroelectricity_in_Turkey#Politics. Could anyone add the CURRENT Republican People's Party policy to that section? I cannot find it on their website. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The CHP

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The CHP’s historical ideologies during the one-party state of the republic of Turkey should be added. Their current ideologies should also be expanded based on the Turkish Wikipedia. LeonChrisfield (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The current ideologies is correct and many of your new ideologies is part of kemalism. Adding 20 more ideologies is not helpful because it is small part of their party program. Maybe add it on body but not on infobox. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_People%27s_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1204995556"