Talk:People Power Party (South Korea)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

This is the international relations bureau of the United Future Party that means has a right to confirm official information in English. ID jeff6045 is continually posting some wrong information and has not allowed edition. Officially UFP uses the term Chairman and Floor leader not the President or Parliamentary leader. And UFP is a member of IDU and APDU that can be a member to Center-right parties. If someone has a question, (Redacted). Unitedfutureparty (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please gain consensus for your changes by citing a reliable source which verifies your claims. El_C 00:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I respect all rules of Wikipedia and loves it. However it sounds SAMSUNG also needs to gain consenseus to correct wrong information of itself. I see. But UFP can mention officially that the current information in English on Wikipedia is not correct. Officially UFP uses the term Chairman and Floor leader not the President or Parliamentary leader. And UFP is a member of IDU and APDU that can be a member to Center-right parties. Source? : https://www.idu.org/members/ and Please ask to the UFP HQ. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedfutureparty (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How does that link verify your claims — I'm confused. El_C 01:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unitedfutureparty:
Please follow WP:SYN policy. The party simply being member of IDU doesn't mean the party is center-right. For example Fidesz is member of IDU but generally described as right-wing or far-right by international media. Jeff6045 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Political position

Here's at least one source for the "right-wing" designation. 198.138.209.228 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I did some research and the above link seems to be the only source concretely and explicitly stating a political position. If no one opposes, and since it is fairly similar to that of the position of the predecessor party, the Liberty Korea Party, I petition that right-wing, with the source being the above link, be stated as the position until other sources counterclaiming such are provided (if any). If no opposition backed by reliable sources is stated within the next few days, I will assume no disagreement and will place it in the article. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The party is a simple right-wing party. I don't think the party should be labeled as a center-right.--삭은사과 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We should delay placing the party's political spectrum until the general election. Before that, I think it would be a very controversial issue with other editors. Jeff6045 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll agree with you for now. I will not display the spectrum of the political parties until the general elections.--삭은사과 (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I found this source describing the party as "centre-right". It seems pretty difficult to find sources placing this party on the political spectrum, since it is so new. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

​​​If no one has any objections, I'll list the party as "centre-right to right-wing" with the sources listed here on or after April 23, 2020. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to object, only because the party was created out of a merger between mostly the Liberty Korea Party and other smaller conservative parties, and before the merger, none of them appeared to be described as "centre-right." Their ideology doesn't appear to have moderated any amount from the constituent parts. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Assent to HapHaxion's input. It is hard to define the party as centre right with just on source frome chinese media. Also as South korean, the party is considered as hard right in South Korean politics rather than centre-right. Jeff6045 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'm against describing the UFP as a center-right.--삭은사과 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better not to just indicate the political position of the UFP.--삭은사과 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@삭은사과: I would be open to putting the political position as "right-wing", anyway. I don't think there's any controversy that it can be described that way.Ezhao02 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 21:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

삭은사과, do you have any objection to listing the party's political position as "right-wing"? If not, we can add it to the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhao02:I am not opposed to adding only 'Right-wing' to the infobox. I just added it. However, I am a little concerned about editorial disputes.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhao02:I added 'extreme right wing' to the infobox of the UFP. The UFP has an absolute majority of politicians affiliated with the LKP, who were virtually "Right-wing to far-right". The UFP has anti-socialism tendencies and is extremely hostile to sexual minorities, socially conservative and very strong in defending the Park Chung-hee administration in the past. That is why the UFP is often perceived as a hard-line right-wing party in Korea, and its far-right political stance is also included in the document of the UFP with the Korean-language Wikipedia.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm changing my stance on this issue to support listing the UFP as purely "right-wing". Although the party has been described as center-right and is the successor to a line of center-right to right-wing parties, it has also been described as far-right and does include far-right members. Additionally, the majority of sources choose to describe the UFP as right-wing. Ezhao02 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

As the National Power document has been changed, I will change this document as well. If you have any objections, please do not hesitate to discuss. Liberally (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Not "National Power", it's "People Power Party" Liberally (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Logo of United Future Party.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ParkWanSoo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ideologies not based on reliable sources

Cited sources only provide the definition of a conservative political party. Other ideologies, such as right-wing populism and national conservatism, lack any reliable source. These uncited ideologies should be excluded until a reliable source can be found. Res Iudicata (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLUE and MOS:INFOBOXREF. The United Future Party has not been long since it was founded, and Korean political forces often classify it as a faction, which is not well described as ideology. Also, the party's main predecessor, the LKP and Future 4.0, showed a tendency toward national conservatism. However, populism is controversial, so I will remove it from the infobox.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@삭은사과: I don't believe that this falls under WP:BLUE, considering that even "conservatism" needs to be cited. Additionally, although you describe the party's main predecessors as national-conservative, using that to describe this party could count as synthesis. Besides, it seems like the source used on the Liberty Korea Party's page doesn't explicitly label the party as "national-conservative" (if it does, please tell me where), which also counts as synthesis or original research. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhao02:It is the source of the description of LPK as a nationalist party. However, the reason why I wrote "national conservatism" is because in South Korean politics, "Korean nationalism" is often used as an investigation to refer to those who are negative to foreign forces, including the U.S., and who are favorable to active dialogue with North Korea. The LKP and the UFP are not active in unifying North Korea and have shown a tendency to be hostile toward the North.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the UFP has taken nationalistic views on many issues, but I am not good at English, so I have not written them down in detail. For now, there is little disagreement among South Koreans that the UFP is a "national conservatism" party.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

To be more accurate, it is extremely rare in the first place to describe South Korea's political parties with ideological term frequently used in Western politics, such as "liberal conservatism," "conservative liberalism," "national conservatism," "social democracy," and "social liberalism." Moreover, the UFP is a new political party.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I use the term "national conservatism," not "Korean nationalism," is that "nationalism", which appears in Korea's conservative forces, including the UFP, is closer to "South Korean nationalism" with exclusive tendencies than "Korean nationalism." You can find some papers and articles pointing out the nationalist tendencies of the conservative forces in Korea. What is certain is that liberals, not conservatives, tend to be closer to "Korean nationalism" in South Korea. (In terms of political views between North Korea and South Korea, not issues such as immigration or multiculturalism.) If I had to explain all of this and find a paper and quote it, it would be a very meaningless wasteful argument.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@삭은사과: I won't question what you've said about nationalism's place in the liberal and conservative political camps in South Korea; what you've written pretty much aligns with some of the stuff I've read. However, I think that listing the UFP with the ideology of "national conservatism" would still count as original research, so I would strongly prefer that a source that explicitly calls the UFP national-conservative be found. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lee Jun Seok.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

About Ideologies and Political Spectrum

There has been a lot of controversies about PPP's ideology and politocal spectrum spectrum. Therefore, I would like to suggest a solution.

First, remove all other ideologies except conservatism.

Second, remove politocal spectrum.

Please suggest your opinion. --Liberally (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore some typing mistakes;; Liberally (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Ideology

Hi, I am Korean-American living in State of Washington. I have read and done in-depth research on People’s Power Party of Republic of Korea. I have found discrepancy on some of the information represented on this site. I did not find PPP is Anti-Feminism on any of their interviews, website, and journals in Korean, the reference used to conclude and label PPP are sheer opinions and what seems to be very biased view on the party. For example, Nathan Park of Foreign Policy belongs Far-Left ideology as well as NYT referenced for their Ideology. I have yet to find PPP officially expressing anti stands on any of the social issues pertaining to the current political environment. I humbly ask you to revise anti-feminism to Pro-Woman or remove anti-feminism at all as references are inaccurate. Also the Party does not invade human rights issues on LGBTQ. Pigatemypie (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Is there any evidence that Nathan Park is "far left"? It is an objective fact that PPP is hostile to LGBT and feminism. --Storm598 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Social conservatism

The fact that PPP is not "social conservatism" is just a far-right OR-based pun. It is also shown in the article that PPP opposes LGBT rights and feminism. If PPP cannot describe PPP as "social conservatism" in the infobox because there is no source of "social conservatism", then "anti-LGBT" and "ant-feminism" should be described in the infobox. Obviously, PPP is directly referred to as "anti-feminism" from the source written in the article. --Storm598 (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If PPP does not bring the stated grounds that it is a social conservative party, it is an independent description. There are several politicians in the PPP who claim to be feminists. --Sure3910 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream politicians in PPP oppose feminism. The same goes for Yoon, the presidential candidate, and Lee, the current party leader. You are generalizing very few cases as if they were mainstream opinions. And Wikipedia has marked the ideology of many party articles as social conservatism based on opposition to LGBTQ human rights and anti-feminism.--Storm598 (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

What is certain is that PPP is anti-feminism because there have been several reports in the media called "anti-feminism." PPP's position on feminism is clearly not moderate.--Storm598 (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Has PPP ever officially argued for anti-feminism at the party level?

Even so, the evidence you claim does not state that the PPP is a social conservative party. --Sure3910 (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is just a pun. European far-right populist parties are also considered far-right because the mainstream forces of the party have such a tendency, even if they do not put forward far-right ideologies at the party level. Now, many other major politicians, including PPP party representatives, presidential candidates, are anti-feminists. --Storm598 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Political position of PPP

You are repeating the claim that the PPP is a far-right party. I'm curious what you think the standards of the far-right are.

The current PPP government does not fall under the anti-globalization ideology, which is the main identity of the far-right in Europe, as well as the establishment of the immigration office. Also, PPP leader Lee Jun-seok has expressed a favorable position on homosexuality. (https://www.christiantoday.co.kr/news/340657) I would like you to explain why you think the People's Power is a far-right party.--211.202.127.36 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Christianday is a media that supports cultural Marxist conspiracy theories, and it is not a mainstream media and cannot be trusted. PPP supports a position close to the Far right (at least by US or European standards) on many social issues.--Mureungdowon (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not arbitrarily interpret your remarks. Based on the article, articles that view the right wing are the mainstream, and there are often articles that view them as far-right and center-right. Therefore, I ask you to write as a simple right wing. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You are constantly stating your subjective views without any source, so please present a credible media that classifies the PPP as a far-right party. The parties classified as far-right parties in English Wikipedia include France's National Rally, Germany's AfD, and Hungary's Fidesz, etc. Do you think the PPP is on the same line with these parties? 210.221.255.173 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This Korean press evaluated the people's power as far-right.

https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/2021082222314899642

I do not view the People's Power as a simple far-right party, nor do I see it as a center-right party. Since there are both extreme right-wing media data and center-right media data, let's evaluate it as a simple right-wing one. Lazt9312 (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

When I looked at the data that 'claimed' that the people's power was evaluated as center-right, there was only an expression that it was more moderate than in the past, but there was no expression of center-right. If so, I think the right-wing to far-right evaluation is correct, as there are only data that evaluates to the right and the data that evaluates to the far right.

The Nation, a reliable journalist, also evaluated the power of the people as far-right.

( https://www.thenation.com/article/world/south-korea-elections-climate/ )

( http://www.giview.co.kr/mobile/article.html?no=31644 ) Lazt9312 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Tim Sherlock is hardly an objective observer, and you keep citing progressive media such as Pressian, which is difficult to agree with. 210.221.255.159 (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating subjective claims based on biased media?

But we have to see an agreement, so I propose a big tent as an alternative.

| Political position = Big tent

^ a: There are various political positions in the PPP. Centre-right to right-wing politics are representative, but there are also opinions that the PPP has far-right politics.

Do you agree with this statement? 210.221.255.159 (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is practically no data evaluating ppp as a center-right winger. I think Nation is neutral and trustworthy. Even though both the Korean and foreign media, which evaluated the power of the people as far-right, were presented, I cannot agree to the continued opposition without evidence. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the people's power is now on a path to moderate after the election of a new party leader, but the extreme internal factions are still intact. It is a sufficiently extreme neoliberal ideology that is close to the far-right political position) and made remarks as if defending the election fraud conspiracy theory. Therefore, I propose to establish the political position of the people's power as follows.

https://www.donga.com/news/Politics/article/all/20210916/109289218/1 Lazt9312 (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The Nation itself is basically a magazine with a progressive bias, but even the author of the article you presented is a person who has appeared on South Korea's extreme left-wing broadcaster TBS, and it is difficult to acknowledge the credibility of the article.

You should present specific examples of the PPP's far-right politics, not just the arguments of biased people who brand the PPP as far-right without context.

And it's the first time I've ever heard the opinion that repealing the inheritance tax is far-right politics. Inheritance tax is also abolished in Sweden.

Also, neoliberalism is not far-right politics. Far-right politics in the 21st century is an ideology based on ultranationalism and anti-globalization, and it is correct to view it as the opposite of neoliberalism.

The PPP is also a member of the IDU, an international coalition of centre-right parties to which the German CDU and the British Conservative Party belong. Therefore, the view that the PPP is a centre-right party seems more persuasive than that it is a far-right party. 210.221.255.159 (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what TBS is, but I've heard that the media environment in Korea is conservative. If there is any material that evaluated TBS as a far-left press, I would appreciate it. Lazt9312 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you keep repeating your far-left arguments, I'm not sure I can reach an agreement, so I'll just wait for new people to join the discussion. It seems difficult for the two of us to come to an agreement. 210.221.255.159 (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The power of the people was evaluated as “right wing” or “far-right”, never as a center-right wing. So, let's evaluate it as right-wing to far-right. If you are opposed to the right-wing perspective, I would like you to prove that there is a serious problem with the credibility of media articles claiming the far-right or bring an article that evaluates the power of the people as center-right.

How about writing it this way with as much agreement as possible?

| Political position = right-wing to far-right

^ a: It was originally evaluated as right-wing to far-right, but after the election of a new party leader, it is considered to have been moderated and moved to a simple right-wing position.
Lazt9312 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you are repeating the same argument without rebutting what I pointed out, I do not see any reason to give an answer at this time. I will wait for more people to join the discussion. 210.221.255.159 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If you do not present an article that clearly expresses the power of the people as "center-right" rather than your own, I cannot agree with the debater's argument.

I asked why TBS is a far-left broadcaster, so why doesn't it answer?

After all, there is a right-wing or far-right rationale right now, but the conclusion has no choice but to come out as a simple right-wing or right-to-extreme right anyway. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your claiming that the PPP is a far-right party comes from articles written by biased media, and if you want to stick with that argument, you must also agree with the credibility of my source, which describes the Democrats as a 'far-left communist party'.

https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/70683

https://www.mbn.co.kr/news/politics/4701862

I would like to make it clear that only reports from neutral English-speaking media that have no interest in Korean politics should be used as sources. 211.114.22.80 (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/can-a-36-year-old-leader-transform-south-koreas-conservative-party/

- While conservatives chose a young leader to garner more support from young voters and those in the center, some say that it is inevitable for Lee to face obstacles not only from progressives, but also from his supporters and his party’s lawmakers.

Also, The International Democrat Union, to which the PPP belongs, is an alliance of centre-right (as well as some further right-wing) political parties – including the UK Conservative Party, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Republican Party of the United States, the Liberal Party of Australia, the New Zealand National Party and Christian democratic parties – which declares commitment to human rights as well as economic development. 211.114.22.80 (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Economist, a magazine with global influence, also classified People's Power as a center-right party.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/03/05/south-koreas-economy-threatens-to-become-like-japans

Yoon Seok-youl, of the centre-right People Power Party have clashed over... blahblahblah 211.114.22.80 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

When I read the article, I didn't see the term "center-right". There is no expression of center-right in the articles you have presented as a basis. Therefore, there are only claims of the far-right and the right-wing, so there is no choice but to be right-wing or far-right.

Also, please go to that document for information related to the Korean Democratic Party (and separate "articles" and "columns"). The claim that the Korean media is biased is not persuasive.

Rather, I heard that the top three Korean media outlets and about 70% of the top 10 media outlets are similar to Fox News (conservative media in the US). Lazt9312 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Economist article clearly states that the PPP is centre-right. Did you check correctly? If you insist that it is not written even though it is written, how are we going to have a discussion? 210.221.255.174 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Super-expensive houses have become a major issue in South Korea’s tight presidential election, which takes place on March 9th. The two front-runners—Lee Jae-myung, of the ruling Minjoo Party, and Yoon Seok-youl, of the centre-right People Power Party—have clashed over housing policy throughout the campaign.

Are you arguing that there is no center-right phrase even though it is clearly stated in the article? Are you really willing to discuss and come to an agreement? 210.221.255.174 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to invite some users to this talk page. (WP:DR) Please do not change the party's ideology or political spectrum without any further discussion on the talk page and keep WP:COV and WP:NPOV 210.221.255.159 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Super-expensive houses have become a major issue in South Korea’s tight presidential election, which takes place on March 9th. The two front-runners—Lee Jae-myung, of the ruling Minjoo Party, and Yoon Seok-youl, of the centre-right People Power Party—have clashed over housing policy throughout the campaign.

Are you arguing that there is no center-right phrase even though it is clearly stated in the article? Are you really willing to discuss and come to an agreement? 210.221.255.174 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is my mistake to judge wrong. I will accept the argument that the power of the people should be evaluated as a simple right wing. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Then, it would be good to combine the opinion of the panelist with my opinion and do the following for the spectrum of ppp.

Big tent, right wing

internal faction

center right to far right

It seems like it would be good to hang related evidence articles next to each tendency.

(There is a similar example in the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party article on Korean Wikipedia) Lazt9312 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is no objection within the next day, I will revise it as suggested above. Lazt9312 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to agree on a settlement agreement? Lazt9312 (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Centre-right????

PPP has overwhelmingly more views on the right than views on the center-right, and far-right controversy exists. However, considering that South Korea is practically a two-party system, it is better to eliminate the dispute by removing its political position.

Let's not describe the political position in the infobox of the article. This proposal may be the best alternative to satisfy many editors.--2001:2D8:922:613B:651B:E237:1E93:1555 (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As seen in the dispute above in Talk, it is not a widely accepted view that PPP is center-right. I'm an IP user, so I won't be able to participate, but I thought I needed a vote on whether the PPP was Centre-Right.--2001:2D8:6C34:2CF7:D9CD:88FC:CA79:6051 (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The ip above is my ip. Even relatively moderate politicians within the PPP are extremely hostile to LGBT rights. Lee Joon-seok, a former leader, even had controversy over his hatred of the disabled, and there is a negative position on feminism as a whole. This is not a political position to call center-right in Europe or the United States. As South Korea's low birth rate became serious, PPP shifted to a moderate position in immigration policy, but I understand that other editors agreed that the Liberty Korea Party, the predecessor and de facto mainstream of PPP, is a far-right party.--Mureungdowon (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources about centre-right are reliable. Also they are directly describing the party as cnetre-right. I think there is no problem to portray party's political spectrum as centre-right to right-wing.Jeff6045 (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The 'diplomat' source you presented does not directly portray the party as a center-right. And the far-right nature of PPP has been mentioned in the Hankyoreh and The Nation. "Centre-right" is not agreed at all, so the political position should remain the status quo as the existing "Right-wing".--Mureungdowon (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you remove the political position from infobox? I can never agree that I am a center-right. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't change your political position before an agreement is reached through Talk. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove party’s political spectrum. The reason why I removed Democratic party’s political spectrum is that the party has been described as both centrist and left-wing. However People Power party has been described as center-right or right-wing by reliable sources. Only left-leaning newspapers have criticized party’s hard right faction. If you want to change party’s political spectrum please make consensus with numerous wiki users and provide reliable sources that party is far from center-right. Thank you. Jeff6045 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The party is described as right-wing in an overwhelming number of sources, even if there are a few sources to believe that the PPP is centre-right. If PPP is a right-of-center logic, there is a reliable source describing Japan's LDP as a right-of-center party, so it should be viewed the same way. Do you agree? In addition, you have disagreed with the Liberty Korea Party's political position in the past as "right-wing," argued that the LKP should be described as "right-wing to far-right," and led to actual agreement. Is there any evidence that PPP is much more moderate than LKP? Once again, I can see that there is no consensus among users that PPP is center-right, and many reliable sources indicate that the party is more often portrayed as right-wing than it is. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Fidesz, Law and Justice, and Japan's LDP are also described as center-right in many reliable sources. The same is true of the GOP in the United States. I would rather suggest removing the political position of the PPP. Once again, you cannot deny that even if you look for many reliable sources, PPP is overwhelmingly expressed as "right-wing" rather than "centre-right." Mureungdowon (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It is written as a simple right wing and I think it should be written as center-right to far-right. Lazt9312 (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is also classified as right-wing in the English version. Judging from this standard, People Power Party (PPP) is clearly more right than the Liberal Democratic Party, so it should be classified as right-wing. If PPP is classified as centre-right, of course, LDP should be classified as well. 769haas (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. If the LDP is not center-right, PPP is even more not center-right. Currently, Jeff6045 is the only one who claims that PPP is "centre-right" in this debate. Therefore, we will remove the phrase written on the center-right and restore it to its existing political position.--Mureungdowon (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No other wiki users have agreed to your input. Please make consensus first. Jeff6045 (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't play with words. Lazt9312 agreed that the PPP's political position is right-wing, and 769 haas says it is more right-wing than the LDP at all. Jeff6045 is the only one in this debate who doesn't agree that PPP is simply a "Right-wing" You shouldn't cause any more editorial disputes.--Mureungdowon (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you just don't know how to make conseneus with other wiki users. Also your attitude seems quite rude to me. Please be civil. I suggest you to read WP:CON and WP:CIVIL policy. Thankyou. Jeff6045 (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was rude to you. You're the only one in the talk who doesn't agree that PPP is a "right-wing", and the long-held political position in the article was also a "right-wing". Therefore, if there is no agreement in Talk that PPP is "centre-right," it should never be reflected in the article.--Mureungdowon (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if Lazt9312 has agreed to your input it is enough to change party's political position. We need more debate with multiple wiki users. Also it seems that Lazt9312 has failed to make concenus with other wiki users. Jeff6045 (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

[1] In addition party's political position was already agreed as centre-right to right-wing. But one ip user had deleted centre-right content without making any consensus. Jeff6045 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you skip 769haas? No one agrees with you. Also, UFP and PPP are legally the same parties and ideologically no difference. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mureungdowon You should at least provide reliable sources that describe the party as right-wing. Currently there are no reliable sources supporting your claim. Jeff6045 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree to express the political position of the People's Power Party as a simple right wing and write "center right" to "far right" in internal factions. The power of the people was moving in a relatively moderate direction after the election of the moderate party leader in the past, but after the ouster of the party leader, it is moving again in the radical direction of the Liberty Korea Party. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is no objection by tomorrow, I will revise it as above. Lazt9312 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing right-wing from PPP's political spectrum

I have found no reliable sources are cited to describe party's right-wing position. I want to remove right-wing from party's political spectrum uless there are other reliable sources that describe the party as right-wing. Jeff6045 (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It was mentioned in an article in the New York Times as being right-winged.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/opinion/international-world/korea-emoji-feminism-misogyny.html

It seems rather extreme to deny that there is even a right-wing tendency. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This user has a history of deleting the center-right classification from the LDP(Japan) document and fixing it as right-wing. Conversely, in this document, he deletes right-wing classification and try to fix it as the center-right. It seems very contradictory. 769haas (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's vote to determine the political position of the PPP

As for the political position of PPP, no satisfactory conclusions are drawn. When no conclusion is reached, it is better to make a majority decision. Please mention a political position in which each agrees.

• Far-right
• Right-wing to far-right
• Right-wing (with far-right factions)
• Right-wing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mureungdowon (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Centre-right to right-wing
• Centre-right

--Mureungdowon (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Vote

• Right-wing or Right-wing to far-right or Right-wing (with far-right factions). Simple: this party is more conservative than the LDP, and has an extreme aversion to communism. South Korea and Japan are one of the few developed and liberal democracies. None of these countries is more socially conservative, anti-communist than PPP, and reveals a blatant dislike of LGBT. While center-right parties in other developed countries oppose 'homosexual marriage', they do not oppose 'homosexual', and PPP is anti-feminist sentiment. PPP is similar to the far right in Europe, as the center-left media Hankyoreh pointed out on issues related to feminism. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Originally, he insisted on a simple right-wing position, but now the PPP is in a situation where the influence of moderates has been extremely reduced, so right-wing to far-right.

  After writing with , it is better to write the center-right wing as an internal faction (since there are moderates such as Yoo Seung-min).

  right wing to extreme right

  Inner faction:

  right-wing to center-right Lazt9312 (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/politics_general/1073262.html

  https://www.khan.co.kr/politics/assembly/article/202210182102025

  https://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/5870335

  https://m.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2022071109590000646

  are sources. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by voting, but by a consensus as to what an article should say, preferably based in Wikipedia guidelines. The article should refer to this party as what most independent reliable sources refer to its ideology as. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"Social conservatism" and "Anti-communism"

Are they needed in the "Ideology" parametre? The reason being that both are intrinsically linked to the conservatism that has developed in South Korea. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Social conservatism

I think it should be removed, as it constitutes an element of conservatism in South Korea. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Opposition. I think it should be reserved for readers who don't know if it's the main element of Korean conservatism. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Though the reason why "(South Korean)" is there denotes that, yes the ideology has a long history, but that it differs from other countries, otherwise there would be no point in having it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a point to that. Historically, the main factor in dividing conservative and liberal in South Korea has been the perspective of North Korea, and it is still partially valid. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement it shall be removed? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No. I think "social conservatism" should be maintained. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What has that go to do with keeping "social conservatism"? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

PPP is now consistently conservative. However, during the Grand National Party (한나라당), there were also culturally moderate-to-liberal members. In the 2020s, a cultural war began in South Korean politics. Exactly a 15 years ago, however, the main issue of South Korea's main conservatives and main liberals was North Korea, while other issues were not subjects for dividing conservatives and liberals. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Also disagree with removing this. Why was this discussion not started in the correct place at the bottom of the talk page? Helper201 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Outdated grammar in “2020-2021”

"There are speculations that the party is willing to form an electoral alliance with the minor opposition party in the 2021 by-elections.". This sentence should be updated to present day. Benmsch (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi Mureungdowon. I'm not sure why you have a problem with having fiscal conservativism in the infobox when it’s supported by a citation. Also, a hawk is in reference to war hawk. What other definition do you think it is referring to in this context? Helper201 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The DPK is a hawk in the sense that it has a strong foreign policy against Japan. However, both South Korea and Japan are allies of the United States, and the DPK does not in itself attempt to go to war with Japan. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Fiscal conservatism is an American term, and it is not used much in South Korea. There is redundancy because "Economic liberalism" and "Conservatism" are written in infobox. There is no need to write too much ideology in infobox. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

In regards to your first point, this is your stated opinion. It may well be the right. How correct or not the statement is is not what is being discussed. The issue is whether the person is using the term "hawk" in this context as a shorthand for the term "war hawk", of which I can see no reason (nor none provided by yourself) as to why that's not what they are saying here.

In regards to the second, the origins of a term fiscal conservatism don't matter, what matters is whether or not this party is referred to as this by reliable sources, and we have one that says as much. Also, having economic liberalism in the infobox doesn't make this redundant. You yourself said while they overlap, they’re not the same. They are significantly different enough to have their own separate Wikipedia pages, rather than one be a section on the others page. I don't see how adding this one ideology makes the infobox any more difficult to read. Helper201 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no term 'hawk' in the source in the first place. The term should be changed to 'hard-line'. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There was once a time when too much ideology was added to infobox. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to maintain the status quo. And there is only one source in the article that supports "fiscal conservatism". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a long time, my position has now changed. I support Helper201's view of putting both 'fiscal conservatism' and 'economic liberalism' into infobox. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Explanations about the edits I have made

After deleting a significant amount of information from the article, I wanted to post an explanation to prevent some users from misunderstanding it as vandalism. Firstly, I edited the section on the party's ideology. The source that was cited to describe the party as right-wing populist did not explicitly depict the party as such, which violates the WP:SYN policy, so I deleted it. Secondly, I enhanced the neutral description of the party in the introduction of the article. The word "conservative party" was already mentioned in the infobox, so I deleted it from the introduction to maintain the neutrality of the article. If there are any issues with my edits, please leave a reply here. Jeff6045 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I will insist on maintaining the original narrative. The original description described the party as simple conservative, not conservative and right-wing populism. (in the description above) The part is modified, but the principle is to maintain the ideology and internal faction that have been maintained for more than a month. Lazt9312 (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-feminism?

The Party has explicitly taken on the issue of opposing "feminists and misandrists". 2A02:3030:81D:B7C:1:0:E6A6:EE35 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Fiscal conservatism, National conservatism and Social conservatism

Are they needed? Other ideologies cover them to a certain extent, and not all ideologies are needed in the infobox, as it is to summerise, not to be explicit. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201 and Lazt9312:: What do you guys think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the infobox should be kept as it is. I don't think 5 ideologies is an overload and is perfectly readable. While these ideologies can overlap to a certain extent they don't always do. Take parties like the Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present) for example, who are both socially conservative but also advocate social democracy, which is very different from fiscal conservatism. Helper201 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

However, social democracy relates to social justice and economics, social conservatism relates to social issues, like abortion, LGBT rights and others. We currently have social conservatism, which isn't needed, as we already have national conservatism, which the former is a part of. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Social democracy can involve social justice, but it doesn't have to, its primarily an economic ideology. As demonstrated a party can differ on its economic and social views. I think its therefore beneficial to include both and maintain the infobox as it currently stands to clarify where the party stands economically and socially. I therefore still stand by the view of maintaining the current state of the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

However, national conservatism includes social conservatism, so the latter is redundant. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)