Jump to content

Talk:Justice Party (South Korea)

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

Social democracy dispute in artcle Justice Party

[edit]

See the history in my talk page. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the issue is here. The party calls itself a social democratic party. Your whole spiel about "Social democracy of Korean style (한국형 사민주의) is not Social democracy" is unconvincing. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought it is not for you to decide whether "Social democracy of Korean style (한국형 사민주의) is not Social democracy". I read the articles you linked - my Korean is mediocre, so bare with me- and it seems like some of them are arguing that the party is Marxist-Leninist? “지금은 사라진 구 통합진보당은 아예 사민주의랑은 거리가 있고, 정의당은 사민주의를 포기한 사람들이다. 통진당은 주체사상이고, 정의당은 마르크스-레닌주의라는 차이가 있을 뿐이다.”[1] My problem with using "Reformism" in describing political parties ideology is that it barely means anything in political context. It doesn't really matter what it means in South Korean terminology, you can edit Korean Wikipedia if you so wish. It is Wikipedia's function to convey information and "Reformism" barely has any meaning, so is "Progressivism" btw, unless you are describing political party from 19th century, those words do not really convey any information. I'm honestly baffled by this apparent extreme adherence to social democratic ideology you are showing at the latter part of the talk page. Seems like you are the one who keeps changing people's edit to fit within your own conception of how the page should be. Almost every other Wikipedia page of the party describes it as "Social Democratic". Sadfccolmalme (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the User talk:Garam#Justice Party (South Korea). Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A) So-called reformism was a label used by the revolutionary marxists during the Second International to denigrate social democratic currents headed by Bernstein in SPD. Usage of "Reformism" as a distinct ideology from the social democratic position; especially in left-wing context, is simply not done. It's like putting "tankie" instead of Marxist-Leninism or "trot" instead of Trotskyism when describing revolutionary left ideologies.

B) My Korean is not perfect but the article cited to support the existence of an internal faction that supports Democratic Socialism clearly states that this "Progressive Left" group calls for Democratic Socialist platform several times in the article. You literally read only the headline. From the article: "‘진보좌파’는 창립선언문에서 민주적 사회주의 노선을 견지하면서 정의당이 진보 시민과 노동을 결합하여 노동 중심의 진보좌파 정당으로 정의당이 발전할 수 있도록 노력하겠다고 밝히고 있다." "하나, 우리 모임은 대한민국을 헬조선으로 만들고 있는 시장 만능의 신자유주의를 극복하고 노동 중심의 민주주의와 다양한 소수자의 권리를 구현하는 연대적 평등사회 건설을 지향하는 ‘민주적 사회주의’ 노선을 견지할 것입니다." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.232.11 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@172.58.232.11: I think, you still have not read previous talk. Already I said in previous talk, the opinions like "A)" in your opinion (e.g. Usage of "Reformism" as a distinct ideology from the social democratic position in South Korea) is original research. And I also said in previous talk,
Finally, "Reformism" means "사회개량주의", and "개혁주의" in South Korea. I don't know why do you think ill of "Reformism" (as "사회개량주의"). And the ideology of Justice Party is surely 'reformism' and "progressivism" in their platform (Please, search the "개혁" & "진보", "혁신" in the link).
— the previous talk in my talk page
For "B)" in your opinion, Justice Party have so many opinion groups and internal factions. But according to Redian, "Jinbojwapa" (lit. Progressive Left; 진보좌파) is opinion group, not internal faction. So, we cannot add the "Jinbojwapa"'s ideology.
For this reasons, I was revert your edits. Please do not revert it before this talk has finished. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Just read the entirety of the debate - that you've deleted- and I'm not even doing that. This is the worst case of railroading and goal-post moving that I've ever seen.I don't know what kind of obsession you have with this party, but not a good look, mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1382:8A:18F1:FE4B:DD16:A787 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it is prejudice for me. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spring3390: Do you remember this? Then, please don't revert my edits. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that a lot more references has been presented- including third-party academic literature- and you've been simply rejecting them and enforcing quite narrow deifinition that only you seem to approve atm. Also, seeing that the page has "Expand Korean" tag, I tried to translate the Korean article. It seems like there has been a long concensus in including Social Democracy among the party's ideology in the Korean page. Seeing the Korean page would have higher scrutiny for their own page for the "Justice Party" than english stub article, it seems more prudent to defer judgement on the Korean editors. Spring3390 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spring3390: Where is "academic literature" for "Justice Party", not some people in that party? I asked all the time, "where is source?". And Korean wikipedia cannot do as source. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January, 2018

[edit]

Read the talk page, article cited clearly describes Justice Party as "social-democratic", That said, the current incarnation of South Korea’s social-democratic party, the Justice Party, the article is written by Owen Miller, Korean History Professor at SOAS with focus on social and economic history of 19th and 20th century Korea; urban history; Korean nationalist and Marxist historiographies; the economic history of North Korea; and state formation in Northeast Asia. Jacobin is a widely respected American left-wing magazine. The cited article is sound. I believe this settles the controversy around "social democratic" designation of this party unless Garam can come up with an at least equally authoritative source that argues against it.

Another issue Garam seems to have is an assertion that "Opinion Group is not a faction"? Not sure what this means. Is this an original research? 2604:2000:1382:8A:2DB9:4B3E:7258:9E0 (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, your link is broken. Second, where is source about "Opinion Group is a faction"? And please see above the talk. Already I said. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link: https://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff31439.php Well, where is the source for Garam to claim that "Opinion Group is not a faction" in a flippant undoing of edit done by HapHaxion? You have not adressed single issues raised by my comment. Talks above were meaningless semantic fights based on various different Korean sources. Directly rebut the authority of this source- the Jacobin article- if you want to create a concesus for this page. You are simply unwilling to engage in the debate. Read the talk page guideline before answering like that. 2604:2000:1382:8A:2DB9:4B3E:7258:9E0 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And about your edits; nowhere can I find any data to "social democracy" in link 2. And JACOBIN (part "Left Prospects" of [2]) said, "That said, the current incarnation of South Korea’s social-democratic party, the Justice Party, had the best showing of any left-wing party in the recent elections." only. This also now nowhere can I find any data to "why Justice Party is social-democratic party". Also, if you think that "opinion group = faction", please give sources for your opinion at the first. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And see WP:3RR. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving the goal post here, since it seems like your original objection against the link 2 seems to be that the "Social Democracy in Korean context" is not a "Social Democracy" which is on its own your original research. However, we can disregard the link 2 if you like. However, please do show me any rules on the Wikipedia edit that says the article has to show "why Justice Party is social-democratic party". Because what I see is an a Reliable Source that describes the party as the "social-democratic" party. Why does the source have to mention why it is a social democratic party? The source on its own stands itself. 2604:2000:1382:8A:2DB9:4B3E:7258:9E0 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to reflect Garam and my point. Is current page enough to achieve the concensus? 2604:2000:1382:8A:2DB9:4B3E:7258:9E0 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think, you still have not read above the talk. At first, please see above the talk (with link of user talk page). Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit is over 3RR. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the talk multiple times. The preceding talk is irrelevant, because we are not talking about the definition or semantics of Social democracy in Korea. This is a new, authorative, english source [3] that clearly states that the Justice Party is the "social-democratic" party. Either rebut the claim, using your own authorative source, or dispute the authority of the writer or the publication. Any other discussion is uncessary and irrelevant. 2604:2000:1382:8A:2DB9:4B3E:7258:9E0 (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said to you, where can I find link between "Social democracy" and "Justice Party" in JACOBIN. This does not mean JACOBIN does not report "South Korea’s social-democratic party, the Justice Party". Do you understand my point? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And "의견 그룹" (opinion group) is a level lower than "정파" (faction) in Korean politics. See #1 and #2. Also, you can search for these differences in Google. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wha....What? the link between Social democracy and Justice Party in the Jacobin article is rather self-evident, no? It's a basic grammer. The author wrote "South Korea's social-democratic party" to describe the Justice Party. Social-democratic party usually means that the party adheres to the principles of Social Democracy, like how "conservative party" adheres to the idea of conservatism, and how "liberal party" adheres to the idea of liberalism. If you are somehow saying that calling a party "social-democartic party" doesn't mean that the party's politcal position could be described as "social democracy", than I'm afraid that is an uterrly meaningless semantic.

On the second point, I have no quibble with the statement, I'm sure you know more about the structure of the Korean political party than me. Unless @HapHaxion wants to contest that point, I'll consider that matter closed. Thanks 2604:2000:1382:8A:2DB9:4B3E:7258:9E0 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that well sourced material shouldn't be reverted without a majority consensus. May seek dispute resolution/mediation/community input judging by prior discussions. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

Questions 1) Should social democracy be added as one of the party's ideologies in the infobox with sources as presented above (on the talk page)/in reverted edits and in a previous discussion on Garam's talk page?

2)Should the democratic socialist "opinion group" within the party be considered a faction and have it's ideology described as such in the infobox as well?

HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 19:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes I've engaged with Garam previously on this precise subject. In my opinion, further sources - including the Jacobin article- puts the discussion on the social democratic nature of the Justice party to the rest. Furthermore, party constitution/ manifesto that I've partially translated for the page - under "ideology" - shows clear social democratic/ democratic socialist polcies being advocated, including "democratic control of the capitalistic excess through the implementation of economic democracy and public ownership of basic utilities" and advocation of creation of a welfare state.

2) I'm less sure on. The assertion by Garam that there is some kind of strict hirearchy between "faction" and "opinion group" is patently ridiculous, however, I'm not sure if the "Progressive Left" group has enough of a claut within the party to be considered as a significant faction. The Korean wikipedia article does shows that a motion to rename the party to "Democratic Socialist Party" was defeated by 69-31 in 2016.

Spring3390 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't want to talk to User Spring3390 before User Spring3390 apologizes to me about this attitude in edit summary and this actions in user talk page etc.
  1. Lately Korean Wikipedians also had similar discussion in ko:토론:정의당 (대한민국)#이념 정치노선에 사회민주주의만 표기하도록 하는거 어떨까요?. According to this discussion, the factions in Justice Party have only one thing in common, is that they are "Progressivism". (For factions in Justice Party, see my previous talk page.)
  2. Sometimes it seems that "opinion group"s has become "faction"s in South Korea. (See above, link #1 and #2) For instance, "Incheon Union" (인천연합), "Ulsan Union" (울산연합) and "Eastern Gyeonggi Union" (경기동부연합), known as main groups in NL, was a member of 민주주의민족통일전국연합 (shortly "National Union") until 2008 when it officially dissolved. But until now, the "Union"s are called as "faction"s in some partes (e.g. Unified Progressive Party, Justice Party and Minjung Party), but they are not "opinion group"s in any parties, South Korea.
Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh remeber this? “I asked all the time, "where is source?". And Korean wikipedia cannot do as source. Thanks.” Seems like your opinion suddenly changed. I’m okay with using concensus on the political position outlined in the Korean Wikipedia. It was you who were being insufferable on the matter.

Last half of the post is an absolute drivel. I have no earthly idea what you are even talking about here. Spring3390 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell the difference bewteen "Article" (as WP:REFLOOP) and "Talk page" (as WP:CONS) in Wikipedia? Then, you cannot said like that. And your last words is only your opinion. Finally, I’m saying you for the last time, do not ignore the other users any more. --Garam (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I remember correctly, I talked about the consensus formed in the Korean article of the wikipedia. Which came from the the talk page you are quoting now. Are you that thick? The consensus position in the article was a direct result of what was said on the talk page. It's not a separate entity. If you were to accept the talk page in the Korean wikipedia as a valid source, than use the damn consensus on this page. Are you on spectrum or something? This is just utterly infuriating. I'm done. Thanks Spring3390 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder to please keep things civil here or mediation may be required. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 14:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY

Notice: BE CAREFUL. Garam(Idh0854) has been blocked many times at multiple Wiki projects for edit warring.[4] [5] [6] According to the Meta, Edit warring is a type of trolling. 223.62.10.18 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new RFC

[edit]

Should social democracy be added as one of the party's ideologies in the infobox? 10:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

[edit]

Threaded discussion

[edit]
  • I'm re-opening this RFC as the previous one didn't settle anything and there is still edit warring over this question. Also, can we keep !votes and discussion clearly separated to make it easier for others to participate? Iffy★Chat -- 10:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to see some actual discussion and sources, which the last RFC had little to none of. Just because the edit warring has stopped for now doesn't mean that it won't return again. That's why the 1st RFC was opened, and why I re-opened it after it expired. Iffy★Chat -- 12:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advocate we should add social democracy to the list of ideologies in the infobox. There is evidence, both first and third party to add this. However I think reformism and progressivism should also both be kept. I don't see an issue with adding a greater amount of cited information to the article. As it currently stands the infobox ideology wise is too vague. Both reformism and progressivism are vague political terms with a multitude of different meanings and interpretations encompassing different ideas and strategies. Social democracy is much more specific and detailed. We have supporting evidence via the source from Jacobin, a well regarded reliable source, with an article written by a lecturer in modern Korean studies, seen here - [1] - as well as a direct statement from the party itself on its own official website:[2]


References

  1. ^ South Korea After Park. Jacobin. Author - Owen Miller. Retrieved 18 September 2018.
  2. ^ Justice Party (South Korea) (official website). Retrieved 18 September 2018.

Liberal political faction

[edit]

I think we should add 'liberalism' as a kind of political faction to the ideological category of Infobox political party. Already, reliable data from overseas have described the Justice Party as a liberal party. For example, they're from pro-Roh Moo-hyun groups or People's Party. Even if the party itself is not a liberal party, there are clearly liberals within the party.--삭은사과 (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources supporting a democratic socialist faction, or any other factions? Other than that, i endorse this! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the NPOV perspective, no political force appears to exist in the Justice Party, which is considered democratic socialism from the outside.--삭은사과 (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Progressivism" and "Reformism" should not be written in the infobox.

[edit]

In South Korea, all parties that are more left-leaning than "social liberal parties" such as the Democratic Party tend to be called "progressive parties," which do not actually mean "progressive parties" in the context of Western politics. There are liberals and even social conservatives in the party. Like the Labor Party (South Korea) document, it is recommended to indicate only social democracy, an official ideology, and at least enough mention of liberalism is made in 'See also'.The debate in Talk in the past was only whether JP was "social democracy". Furthermore, the debate in the previous Talk was about social democracy, not about progressivism. At that time, "social democracy" was not written on the infobox, so it was "progressivism" that was written in the transition period before writing it down with the source. --Storm598 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

discussion of political ideology

[edit]

I will insist on writing the center left as mainstream and the inside left because there are substantially more sources that refer to it as center-left, and there is an opinion from several experts that it is more moderate than center-left parties by international standards.

The Bareun Party is a similar case. The new Conservative Party is becoming less center-right-right, even though there is no centre-right ideology in the ah. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objection, I will write the center left as the mainstream and the inside faction as the left. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you claim, DPK is overwhelmingly described as centre-left rather than centrist in English media. The real problem is that recently DPK and JP have little political solidarity with each other and relations are bad. JP's political position should be kept on the 'centre-left to left-wing'. Please do not cause unnecessary debate about ideology or political position in each South Korean political article. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a Justice Party supporter by any chance? If not, why are you denying that the Justice Party is the left-wing, claiming that the Progressive Party is the far left, and claiming that the DPK is the center right? Those who make these claims were usually Justice Party supporters in the South Korea.
The DPK is an obvious centre-left party and never a centre-right party. The PP is a clear left-wing party and never a far-left. JP is a center-left party, but it is absolutely right that it is a left-wing party, and it should not be denied. (Both the Justice Party and the Progressive Party are part of the progressive camp that distanced themselves from the DPK.
In the edits you have made so far, only the Justice Party has been described as a reasonable liberal party, and the rest as a problematic. I also like JP, but Wikipedia should remain neutral. You need to refrain from biased editing. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I believe that ideology should be written taking into account its source and social background. However, we must write the ideology based on the sources. The Progressive Party is classified only as "left" or "extreme left" and is not referred to as the centre-left. Therefore, it should be written from left to far left.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180130000855
far-left minor opposition Minjung Party Lazt9312 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
One or two candidates in a local race do not represent the entire Party's ideology. Simply, the Justice Party is a progressive Party. They are more left-wing than the U.S. Democratic Party. The Justice Party is openly opposed to chaebol economics and is opposed to US military presence in Korea. Socially, they support same sex marriage and immigrant rights, as well as universal basic income and feminism. These are not "center left" ideologies. Not in Korea, not in Europe, not in the USA. Elg3a-1 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, to make one point, it is not true that the Justice Party opposes the presence of the US military. There is no official Justice Party position on the issue, and leftist nationalists who support the withdrawal of the US military are non-mainstream within the Justice Party. And I think the U.S. Democratic Party is more culturally left than the Justice Party, and a friend of a South Korean civil rights activist I know said Barack Obama or Joe Biden would be more left-wing on civil rights issues than a Justice Party politician like Shim Sang-jung. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the claim that the Justice Party is "leftist". It is difficult to sympathize with the claim that the US Democratic Party is more moderate than the Justice Party. There are civil libertarians in the US Democratic Party that can be seen as radical (by Korean standards) like Bernie Sanders, but there are few in the Justice Party. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the Justice Party is relatively more conservative on cultural issues than the U.S. Democratic Party. However, excessive comparison with American politics in South Korean politics is unnecessary. The Justice Party is recognized by the South Korean public as a leftist party. "Centre-left to left-wing" in infobox should be maintained. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't quite understand your position. The new Conservative Party insists on the center-right even though there is no center-right source, and the Progressive Party insists on the left-wing, saying that there are left-wing and far-left sources, but they are not the extreme left by international standards. In the DPK document, it claims to be a center-left by Korean standards, claiming to be a center-left. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no objection, I will write it as center left, inside faction left wing. For reference, this case is often used as can be seen in the Bareun Party. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideology and political position are different. The Bareun Party is classified as a '제3지대 정당' (third zone political party) in South Korea. The Justice Party is not classified as a '제3지대 정당'. (There's no way you don't know this concept because you're a South Korean.) Rather, writing down the political position in this way will help readers more accurately understand that South Korean politics is conservative biased. The Bareun Party is a centrist party classified as the "제3지대 정당" in South Korea, but the Justice Party is never like that and is considered rather left-wing. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the Justice Party is written as center-left or left-wing, it does not appear to be very different from more radical parties such as the Progressive Party and the Labor Party. In fact, I'm not saying I don't want to write leftists. It is to write down the center left and write down the left as an internal faction. I don't think there will be a big problem if you add the statement "classified as a leftist by Korean standards" that the debater wants. (It seems to be a little different from the debater's position on the Progressive Party. Although the Progressive Party admits that it is evaluated as the extreme left in Korea, it asks to write down the left wing, and here it is written as the center-left to the left) Lazt9312 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim that the Justice Party is not a Korean progressive, I honestly think it really makes no sense. Most of the Korean media classify the Justice Party as "Korea's Progressive Party".
https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/politics_general/1058793.html
https://m.khan.co.kr/opinion/column/article/202212270300005
http://www.ijejutoday.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=301575 Lazt9312 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that the Justice Party is not a progressive party.
Bareun Party is "third zone political party" (제3지대 정당). Justice Party is left-wing "progressive political party" (진보 정당). Bareun Party is described by some sources as centrist.[1] Of course I don't think the Bareun Party is a centrist. Bareun Party is essentially centre-right.
The word "left-wing" has no negative meaning. Therefore, it does not matter at all to call the Justice Party's political position "Centre-left to left-wing". But word "far-left" is clearly a negative meaning. Because "far-left" means "extreme left", calling the Progressive Party "Left-wing to far-left" is a completely different matter from calling the Justice Party "Centre-left to left-wing". Mureungdowon (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you gave is Bareunmirae Party, not Bareun Party.
The Justice Party is by no means a Left-wing politics in so-called international standards. The party is much more moderate than the centre-left parties in the West.
However, since sources refer to it as leftist and it is considered leftist in Korea, it is to write off leftist to internal sects.
(There is an opinion by many experts that it is closer to the middle in European politics or international standards.)
Regarding progressiveism, I asked why you did that by deleting the content that the Justice Party falls under "Korea's progressiveism." Lazt9312 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't answer any more until someone else joins Talk. But the public opinion is that the 'left-wing' should not be removed from the political position, so if you renege on this and change the political position, I will cancel the editing. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Justice_Party_(South_Korea)&diff=1129157169&oldid=1127608011
When I looked it up, the description that was maintained for more than a month was a simple “centre-leftist” description. If you do not agree, I will assert and write the existing statement. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
( http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Justice_Party_(South_Korea)&diff=1130470031&oldid=1129285111 )
( http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Justice_Party_(South_Korea)&diff=1054275650&oldid=1054275297#cnote_A )
In fact, until the debater corrected it on December 30th, I had been writing simple center-left as an ideology. Looking for it, since at least September 2021, Descriptions that have been maintained for more than 3 months are center-left If you do not participate in the discussion and agree, I will write as center-left as per the rules. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you participate in the discussion by tomorrow, we will draw a conclusion through consensus. If there is no opinion, it seems difficult to maintain the original description. (I am also not good at this method.) Lazt9312 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of talking about the same words that you mean, and I just want another user to participate in this talk. I will not participate in this talk until another user participates in this talk. And if you remove the "left-wing" from infobox, I will definitely recover. Mureungdowon (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to take a position that you won't participate in the discussion and stop following the rules.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a dispute over ideology arises, in principle, the solution is to maintain the existing description and resolve it through discussion. In fact, I also don't think it's very good to write simple center-left arguments. That's why it would be nice to come to an agreement by writing down the center left and writing the left as an internal faction. If not, I don't think there is any other way than to keep the original writing. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different story from your political stance (leftist or centre-left). What do you think about adding democratic socialism to the party's ideology?
Democratic Socialism is mentioned in many sources.[2][3][4][5]
" Yang Gyeong-kyu, former vice chairman of the National Federation of Democratic Trade Unions, who is challenging Sim to become the party leader, advocated “democratic socialism.”
Join the discussion. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please participate in the discussion. If there is no objection, "Democratic Socialism added" + existing description will be maintained. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to write as a centre-left.
How about agreeing with the left wing of the center-left inner faction? I would also like to add Democratic Socialism as a minority faction. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the addition of Democratic socialism. They are a complete minority, not a mainstream faction, and what they call democratic socialism is more moderate than what the German Social Democrats call democratic socialism. It's just Social democracy. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the debater's position (that the mainstream of JP is not democratic socialism)
However, according to the debater's logic, how can JP become a 'left wing'? Isn't that more moderate by international standards?
Therefore, my argument is to limit democratic socialism to factions that are not mainstream factions, and to limit leftist factions to one faction. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your Movement is a social liberal party, but it is classified as a "left-wing" party. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep the original description as per the rules. We will discuss after maintaining the original description. It is a rule to maintain a description that lasted for more than a month. It is a principle to discuss new descriptions after reversing them. Lazt9312 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so, the Progressive Party article will likewise maintain its political position as "Left-wing". Mureungdowon (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Progressive Party is not opposed to keeping the leftist position because it has been held for more than a month. The Justice Party is the center leftist, so I will keep the original writing. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Centre-left to left-wing" will accept the description. Originally, I thought there was no basis for the extreme left, but even if I present the basis for centristism, I will accept it because it seems difficult to simply describe the center left because of the extreme left basis.
Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion.
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20180412008000315 Lazt9312 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to insert democratic socialism and progressiveism as an internal faction in the mainstream faction of liberalism and social democracy. What do you think? (The evidence is all there.) Lazt9312 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no objection, I will modify some of the ideology. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Justice Party is a progressive party, and the democratic socialists in JP are all social democrats. And JP is a liberal party at the same time. Moreover, ideological and political positions are two separate areas. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm using machine translation, so it seems to have been translated slightly incorrectly. I was talking about 'ideolog' not 'political positions'.
(The political position is in favor of maintaining the Centre-left to left-wing narrative.)
In fact, the reason for adding democratic socialism is because there is a new force that supports democratic socialism inside. (though very few)
And since "progressive" is also difficult to see as a mainstream, I would like to express liberalism and social democracy as mainstream, and democratic socialism and progressiveism as factions. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the status quo of ideology and political positions. I disagree with your proposal. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, since democratic socialism exists, I think it needs to be written unless there is a special reason not to write it. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then, since Sim Sang-jung is more fiscal conservative than Lee Jae-myung, should I write "Fiscal conservatism" as part of the factions? Your editing could lead to a denial of the Justice Party's identity as a liberal party. The self-proclaimed democratic socialists in the Justice Party are very moderate social democrats. The Justice Party has no militant democratic socialist in the context of American politics. No Justice Party politicians insist on dismantling all the big capital, they don't support socializing the means of production, they don't support "Defund the Police" or anything like that. It is far from what the US and Europe call left-wing to far-left 'democratic socialism'. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, far-left socialists of the U.S. Democratic Party support class struggle and support anarchist movements such as the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone", but there are no libertarian socialists in the Justice Party, and democratic socialists (very moderate social democrats) do not support class struggle and they call on the South's main trade union Korean Confederation of Trade Unions to hold a peaceful rally. Because the socialist movement itself is legally restricted in South Korea, no one in the Justice Party has a democratic socialist or very few in the political context of the United States or Europe. The left in the Justice Party are more moderate than the left in the US Democratic Party, so I'm against adding "democratic socialism" to infobox. --Mureungdowon (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the left wing faction of the JP is more moderate than the left wing wing of the US Democratic Party. In fact, the democratic socialism I advocated (the moderate wing of democratic socialism) is the British Labor Party's mainstream moderate democratic socialism. In the case of the Swedish Social Democratic Party or Labour Party (UK), it is also evaluated as democratic socialism (although it is located on the center left of the spectrum). Lazt9312 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections, I would like to present this proposal.
Liberalism (Korea)
social democracy
Inner faction:
Progressivism (Korea)
Democratic Socialism (Korea) Lazt9312 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition. Three things are sufficient for infobox's ideology: Progressivism, Liberalism, Social democracy. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if there is no reason not to write it down, you should write a substantiated claim. The Democratic Socialist faction is very small, but I think it exists. Lazt9312 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reason to put "Democraitc socialism" in the infobox of the Justice Party. Are there any major Justice Party politicians like AOC in the United States? But we don't put "Democratic socialism" in the infobox of U.S. Democratic articles. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kim, Arin (8 December 2019). "Centrist third party on course to split". The Korea Herald. The Bareunmirae Party was launched with the merger of two centrist parties—one chaired by Ahn and the other by Yoo.
  2. ^ http://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=200546
  3. ^ https://mobile.newsis.com/view.html?ar_id=NISX20190701_0000697790
  4. ^ https://www.kyongbuk.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2006508
  5. ^ https://wspaper.org/article/22870

Political spectrum

[edit]

I have changed the party's political spectrum from just 'center-left' to 'center-left to left-wing' based on reliable sources. I also removed a description claiming, without any source, that the party is more moderate than European Social Democratic parties. If you have any objections to my editing, please feel free to speak up. Jeff6045 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support your opinion on the political position of the Justice Party. (It may be irrelevant to this talk, but I don't agree with your position regarding DPK's political position before.) The Justice Party is a liberal party, but in the context of South Korean politics, it is a 'centre-left to left-wing' party. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Justice Party is described as a center-left because many experts argue that the Justice Party is located in the center of international standards. Some researchers placed the Justice Party to the right of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Although very few, there are cases where the Justice Party has been placed to the right of Merkel's Christian Democrats.
I will keep the center-left narrative because the existing narrative is the rule. If there is an objection, it seems necessary to reach an agreement through discussion.
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=YpirDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT127&dq=%EC%A0%95%EC%9D%98%EB%8B%B9+%EB%8F%85%EC%9D%BC+%EA%B8%B0%EC%A4%80&hl=ko&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTvfHt0cn8AhXQ1GEKHdGRB3oQuwV6BAgKEAc#v=onepage&q=%EC%A0%95%EC%9D%98%EB%8B%B9%20%EB%8F%85%EC%9D%BC%20%EA%B8%B0%EC%A4%80&f=false
https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/column/714353.html Lazt9312 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be adjusted according to a number of circumstances + WP:CON and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Except for you, all users agreed that the Justice Party is a left-wing party. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the agreement must be agreed upon by all users. I know the principle of maintaining the existing narrative. In the past, the original narrative claimed to be left-wing on the centre-left. However, I have proven that this is not true by bringing the results of document records. I am inexperienced in requesting mediation, so please request mediation. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
could you go deeper into the "Justice Party has been placed to the right of Merkel's Christian Democrats." line, why do some think so? Braganza (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]

@Braganza can you explain split rationale? toobigtokale (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because its a coalition and not a rebrand Braganza (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I myself, oppose a split as the Green Justice Party, from a legal viewpoint, is the exact same party as the Justice Party. It is widely expected that the party will revert back to the Justice Party after the election, so I do not see there being enough material for a short-lived electoral coalition to be a separate article. MogasTheThird (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It IS a rebrand. Legally, Korea does not allow electoral alliances. What happened was that the Justice Party renamed itself. After that, leaders and candidates from the Green Party left the Green Party and joined the renamed Party. This technically IS a rebrand according to Korean election law. Elg3a-1 (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MogasTheThird and Elg3a-1: The Left (Poland) is not an alliance legally either and has its own article DESPITE alliances existing in Poland Braganza (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza I am not particularly knowledgeable on the topic of Polish politics but from what I have been able to gather, The Left (Poland) appears to be an actual alliance where multiple parties joined to formed to create a new coalition/organization. However, the Green Justice Party is widely expected to be a temporary rebrand to allow members of the Green Party to run under the “Green Justice” name. Hence, the Green Justice Party is NOT a new organization and thus I continue to oppose an article split. It is much more appropriate to discuss this rebrand in the current article. MogasTheThird (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Left is not an organization, it ran as SLD in both elections.
@MogasTheThird: the article is already rebranded, the colors in the infobox & the logo used are for the Green Justice Party Braganza (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not knowledgeable on the subject of Polish politics, but it seems as though The Left is a parliamentary alliance that contains several political parties. The Green Justice Party, however, is a rebrand, not an alliance. I still see no need for a rebrand to have a separate article. MogasTheThird (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza the same goes for your proposal on the page Basic Income Party MogasTheThird (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what about the Green Party, Open Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party? Braganza (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do they not exist? Braganza (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza the parties you mentioned do exist. However, it must be mentioned that these parties did not form an “electoral alliance” per se. The Green Justice Party is a rebrand of the Justice Party which saw members of the Green Party join ONLY if they were going to run in the 2024 legislative election. Same goes for the New Progressive Alliance which is a rebrand of the Basic Income Party. I believe it’s best to leave these articles as they are currently. MogasTheThird (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i really don't see the difference
and why "leave these articles as they are currently", because we have to change the infoboxes anyway Braganza (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza The difference is that in both cases a simple party name change occurred in order to allow some members of other parties join the party during the election. This is different from an electoral alliance where two or more parties come together to form a new political bloc. As far as infobox changes go, the Twitter logo had to be changed to X when it was rebranded. Like such, necessary infobox changes is not a valid reason to split an article. Not to mention, this article is currently rated start class, meaning more work needs to be done on expanding this article. In my opinion, an article split remains unnecessary. MogasTheThird (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JP or BIP did not just rebrand but worked together with other parties
If it is just a rebrand why does 2024 South Korean legislative election link to the Green Party and not just to the Justice Party or why does Democratic Alliance of Korea link to BIP/NPA twice? Braganza (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page links are beside the main point and do NOT provide rationale for a page split. I've explained above how the Green Justice Party, from a legal perspective, is the same party as the Justice Party. It is a rebrand with select members of the Green Party joining to participate in the 2024 election. It is NOT a new electoral alliance. The news article I will link below, MogasTheThird (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/214/0001327158?sid=100
explains the situation clearly. In an interview with Green Justice Party co-leader Kim Jun-woo, he is asked if the Green Justice Party is a new party formation.
진행자 > 그러면 선거연합 정당을 하고 각자 당으로 돌아간다라고 하면 정의당은 정의당대로 남아 있고 녹색당도 녹색당대로 남아 있고 녹색정의당이라고 하는 새로운 정당을 만드는 겁니까?
김준우 > 아닙니다. 정의당의 당명을 녹색정의당이라고 개명을 하는 거고요. 그리고 녹색당에 있는 주요 정치인 분들이 잠시 선거 때 정의당에 입당했다가 총선을 끝나고 나서 그분들은 탈당을 하시고 저희는 녹색정의당이라는 이름은 더 이상 쓰지 않는 것을 기본합의서로
Translated
Interviewer > Let's say that a union party is formed between the Justice Party and the Green Party, then does this mean that the Green Party and Justice Party will both stay as is and a new party named the "Green Justice Party" will be formed?
Kim Jun-woo > No, the Justice Party will be renamed to the "Green Justice Party" and politicians from the Green Party will briefly join the "Green Justice Party" and after the election is over they will leave the party and the "Green Justice Party" name will no longer be used...
MogasTheThird (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza The interview article above with co-leader Kim Jun-woo clearly explains why the Green Justice Party is not a political alliance but a one-time election rebrand for the Justice Party. Therefore, I strongly oppose a split for this article and believe it is appropriate to end this discussion. MogasTheThird (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MogasTheThird: may i at least remove the references to "Green Justice Party" from the infobox (reverting back to the old image, deleting the name & colors)
there are plenty of similar like OĽaNO which put the names of their allies in their official name (like in 2023: Ordinary People, Independent Candidates, NOVA, Free and Responsible, Pačivale Roma, Magyar Szívek) Braganza (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza I believe there would need to be community consensus on such matters, although I am unsure if that could be reached due to the lack of editors on this page. However, I suggest NOT to remove the Green Justice Party references just yet. A quick visit to the Justice Party's website still shows the Green Justice Party logo and it is unclear exactly when the name and logo will be reverted, although it is likely to be done within April according to Korean sources I've read.
However, I personally believe it is more than appropriate for the time being, to add the original Justice Party logo side by side with the Green Justice party along with a caption along the lines of "Logo used as the Justice Party (left) and logo used as the Green–Justice Party (right)" This can be changed completely to only include the Justice Party logo once the party has officially reverted. MogasTheThird (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
deal Braganza (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza I've made visual fixes to eliminate logo size differences and image outlines. I assume it is now appropriate to close the split proposal? MogasTheThird (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont care about outlines Braganza (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justice_Party_(South_Korea)&oldid=1218717215"