Talk:Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017)

Requested move 21 November 2017

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

---

People's Party (South Korea, 2017) → Minjung Party – According to this party, official english name is Minjung Party. Thanks. Garam (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• For this, see party constitution. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Relisting comment. Wikipedia cares about the most common name in English reliable sources, not the official name. It would be nice if you could provide some examples of that. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:V. I searched in Google for either name of the party, plus the names of members (Yoon Jong-oh, Kim Chang-han, Kim Jong-hoon), restricted to the past month (i.e. roughly the period since the formation of the party, to exclude earlier parties by the same names). The result:
  • I can find newspapers both in South Korea and abroad calling them "Minjung Party" [1][2][3][4]. One of those calls them 'Minjung ("People's") Party' the first time and 'Minjung Party' the second time. The rest only say 'Minjung' without translating it.
  • I can't find any others calling them "People's Party" (notwithstanding one source still calling them the New People's Party [5], apparently in error).

Regards, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minjung Party's ideology and basic logo.

I got not skilled English Because English is not my native language. Please understand this.

As I argued in the discussion document for user 'Vif12vf'.

Currently, the formal ideology between left-wing parties in South Korea is not directly presented in the 'party's doctrine'. However, the words and debates they have published in the columns and official media releases are the basis for this. This is true for other documents in Wikipedia. Most ideologies are not presented in direct words, but ideologies are confirmed through identification through literature interpretation.

For example, the Justice Party did not mention 'social democracy' in Party's doctrine. Also, the Democratic Party did not specify Party's doctrine 'social liberalism'. However, it is understood that they follow their ideology according to the member's claim and radius of action.

If Vif12vf's claim is allowed, the ideology place within all South Korean political parties in Wikipedia should be emptied. Because in the first place, they weren't stated in Party's Doctrine. Media reports or columns of these parties are all based on the party's policy claims.(Of course, even in these cases, 'ideology naming' does not appear directly)

• First of all, I have sourced the press release from Shinhwasa. In this article, Minjung Party is viewed as an Far-leftist party.
• if you look at this election coalition issue ( https://www.mk.co.kr/news/politics/view/2020/03/278385/ ), you can also see that the Democratic Party is looking at the minjung party to the extreme left. and as they say, the minjung party was unable to unite with the Democratic Party because of the Democratic Party's rejection.
• Usually we see Anti-revisionists, Leninists, etc Communists as extreme leftists. Minjung party has a lot of these members. Even the most modest group(in party) 'national sovereignty solidarity'(국민주권연대) sees the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union as 'revisionism' rather than 'socialist self-contradiction'. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Democratic Party and the Justice Party have reported in the free press that they are social liberalism and social democracy, respectively. Minjung Party, on the other hand, has not been described by any free press as a Leninist party. Xinhua is inappropriate to use as a source because of its links to dictatorship. --삭은사과 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Minjung Party is an ultra-left party because China is a dictatorship? You only need to remove what is related to China's dictatorship, and you don't need to deny all of China's sources. And neither the Democratic Party nor the Justice Party have 'ideological naming' about themselves Officially. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ALKMAION1000: Please see WP:VER and WP:NOR. Any personal conclusions of yours (or any other editor) as to Minjung Party's ideology or political spectrum is explicitly banned: we can only cite what reliable sources have to say. Jeff6045 (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency (新華通訊社) is a state-owned media agency in China, but there is no possibility of distortion in this matter. It is an exaggeration to assume that China is a dictatorship, and that it does not have the credibility of all the media reports. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And I also found a new media source.( 1, 2 ) Given that most party spectrum specs follow what the press says, it is persuasive to write Far-left according to the content of the article. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: It seems to turn off time on this part accidentally on purpose. I think there is no problem in writing about the level of reference reliability and mention of sources related to the left wing as well as Far-left wing. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: If you don't have any other comments for 3 days, I will revert. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@ALKMAION1000: I think this discussion will be endless between two of us. I suggest we should just wait until other multiple users join the discussion. 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. Jeff6045 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I think this process will take at least 6 weeks. Please keep the patient until other multiple users join the talk. If you want to delete ideology for more fair discussion please feel free to do it. Jeff6045 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Logo

Look at this homepage(http://minjungparty.com/pages/?p=278). Orange (B) + White (W) is not the default logo. Just because it appears in the top left corner of the homepage doesn't make it the default logo.

According to this official homepage, the image I presented(White(B) + Darkgrey(W) + Orange Symbols) is called the 'default logo'(로고 기본). --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing populism

According to the party's doctrine of the minjung party, although the term 'left-wing populism' does not appear, the concept of explanation is similar.

In particular, the extinguish of economic inner circles(chaebol) and the freeization of education, medical care, and housing are the core values of left-wing populism.( http://minjungparty.com/pdf/%EB%AF%BC%EC%A4%91%EB%8B%B9%EA%B0%95%EB%A0%B9_20190929.pdf ) --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the party is left-wing populism. However, Leninism is an extreme ideology and requires a direct source. (See WP:NOR.)--삭은사과 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

WP does not reflect the personal deduce. Please list what the source is saying and follow WP:SYN policy. Jeff6045 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If so, the information at most political parties should be deleted. This is because the article already uses deduction-based press. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

For example, 'progressivism' in the ideology of minjung party is derived from the phrase "succession of the history and spirit of the progressive party movement."(진보정당 운동의 역사와 정신을 계승) As you know, there is no word 'progressivism' here. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ALKMAION1000: Excuses me? Can you give another better example of the article that reflects user's personal deduce? One example that you mentioned is completely free of WP:SYN. (Rather this can be an issue of WP:NOR) The source is mentioning that the party inherits progressive movement in south korea. So in this case we can mention the party as progressive. Please see the article about Podemos (Spain), Social Democratic Party (Romania), or Direction – Social Democracy. These party has left-wing populism in ideology section due to non-primary sources directly mentioning the party as left-wing populist. Jeff6045 (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to fully equate "inheritance of a progressive party movement" with that of "progressivism"? This, too, is a reasoning. 'Left-wing populism' can also fit into your claims. Because Party's Doctrine already mentions enough of this value. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The same is true if you look at the sources of the political parties listed above. References are made to the word in the book put into the source, but it is not stated how the book was interpreted. Moreover, the book is not the official position of the party.(Direction – Social Democracy) --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ALKMAION1000: Can you quote where exactly the source is describing the party as left-wing populist? Jeff6045 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: And it is not Progressive Movement(진보 운동) but Progressive Party Movement(진보정당 운동). Of course, even if it write downs Progressive Party Movement(진보정당 운동), it can be said that the party is a 'progressivist' party by synthesizing various contents. The same is true for 'left-wing populism'. Didn't I tell you? The current version was just uploaded after interpreting the sentence. You are only focusing on the presence or absence of the word 'left-wing populism', and if that logics, there is nothing you can write on the Minjung Party ideology. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: * 특권과 부패의 정치를 타파하고 직접민주주의를 구현하여 민중주권시대를 완수한다.(Overthrowing the politics of privilege and By implementing direct democracy, it opens the era of sovereignty for the people.)

• 교육·의료·주거·이동·에너지·정보이용의 권리를 무상으로 제공하고, 모든 생애 주기에 질 높은 삶을 누릴 수 있도록 보편복지사회를 실현한다.

(Provides the right(= free education, free medical care, free housing, 무상) to education, medical care, housing, mobility, energy and information free of charge, and realizes a universal welfare society so that people can enjoy a quality life in all life cycles.)

• 세계 진보적인 국가, 정당, 단체, 인사와 국제연대를 실현하고 공영과 평화가 넘쳐흐르는 인류공동체를 구현한다.

(Realizes the world's progressive countries, political parties, groups, human resources and international solidarity, and embodies the community of mankind overflowing with prosperity and peace.)

• 대외의존 경제체제와 초국적 자본 및 재벌의 독점경제를 해체하고 민중이 경제정책을 결정할 권한을 강화하여 경제주권이 실현된 민생중심의 자주자립경제체제를 확립한다.

(Dismantle the foreign-dependent economic system and the monopoly economy of transnational capital and chaebol, and to strengthen the people's authority, establishing a self-reliant economic system centered on the livelihood of economic sovereignty.)

This is a core value that can be called 'left-wing populism'. Although it is not directly written 'left populism'. it can be written for reasons such as 'progressivism'(similar logic). --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: Why do you editing without further answers? Even the sources you added don't have the expression 'Progressivism'. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The source is mentioning the party as progressive. (I think you have completely misunderstood WP:SYN) So it adequate to see the party has progressivism as ideology. Also, the quote that you have given seems to be national populism rather than left-wing populism in my view and deduce. 121.167.168.75 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not insisting on this party that 'Progressivism' should disappear. If do what Jeff6045 logics, Progressivism have to disappear. He additionally deduced Party's Doctrine and added 'Progressivism'. 'Left-wing populism' could be justified similarly. And it cannot be defined as 'National populism' by other provisions. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Look at the Party's Docrine that is currently in place, you can see that it is different from 'National populism'. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, Do you think the source of progressivism in this article is against WP:SYN? Also, do you think it is proper to add left-wing populism in an article's ideology due to ALKMAION1000's deduce from the soruce? Jeff6045 (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: I have never said that you have againsted WP: SYN about 'Progressivism'. But you are applying this differently. 'Left-wing populism' can be put in by the same logic. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: It seems to turn off time on this part accidentally on purpose. I think there is no problem in writing about the level of reference reliability and mention of sources related to the left wing as well as Far-left wing. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your input is based on original research from primary source. This is completely against WP policy. Don't you think this is a problem? Jeff6045 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If my claim is original research from primary source, your claim is similar to this too. You also Deduce that the party ideology is defined as 'Progressivism' through "진보정당의 역사를 계승한다." --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: Again, I'm not against putting 'Progressivism' in party ideology. However, 'Left-wing Populism' may be added for a reason similar to the reason for 'Progressivism'. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If you regard my reverting as the original research from primary source, you should also delete 'Progressivism'. If going to delete Ideology and leave only Spectrum, I'm going to agreement this. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Fristly I want to apologize for my late response. Here is my response to you.

1. Source of progressivism

First source that is used to describe the party as progressive is an primary source with partly including original research. This is my mistake. So I replaced the source with non primary&reliable one.

2. Political spectrum

Let's just delete party's political spectrum until other editors reveal their opinion.

Thank you. Jeff6045 (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement at the very least that the party occupies the left-wing in South Korea, and I haven't really been able to find any sources that claim a centre-left orientation. The party itself and some members also seem to espouse anti-capitalist-like or Marxist-like positions (which are traditionally on the left or far-left, although due to the likelihood that they would get banned if they outright said it, there doesn't seem to be any official word from the party on stances like these. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

HapHaxion's analysis is accurate. Currently, ROK prohibits the activities of communist parties. So Minjung party cannot mention Marxism in Party's Doctrine. However, the majority of party members are Leninists or Far-left Idealists and, if moderate, Left-wing nationalists. Even the majority members of Minjung Party is the same as Anti-Revisionism. They believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union was not due to a defect in socialism, but because of Gorbachev's revisionist policy. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: You are just a source of press articles. It is also a faulty source based on your logic. Of course, I am not against Minjung Party being classified as 'Progressivism'. However, on the basis of your classification as 'Progressivism', my narrative is also acceptable. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Although about a month has passed, Jeff6045 is not giving much opinion on the Political Spectrum. And basically, I think the English Wikipedia member's not interest in the Minjung Party. But Nevertheless, we took a lot of time. Therefore, if there is no other clear objection, I will write(spectrum only) it three days later. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

To summarize my argument.

1. Party's Ideology should be set to 'Progressivism', 'Left-wing populism'. And should be set to 'Marxism' and 'Left-wing nationalism' By adding separate Faction.
2. Party's Spectrum should be set to 'Left wing - Far-left wing'. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why, but Jeff6045 was semi-retired. If Jeff6045 no longer discusses and no other objections are given, including Ideology, the writing period will have to be accelerated. I said I would write my opinion in the document within 3 days, but I will revise it. I will write my opinion in the document within 24 hours. Please refer to this point. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Of course, I understand that Korean political parties often do not specify ideology. But as long as ideologies exist, they must be given absolute priority. There exist sources that describe the party as "nationalism" or "direct democracy," but no sources describe the party as populism. It's just your own research.--삭은사과 (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

One thing for sure is that unlike "populism," "direct democracy" is directly referred to in the party's platform, erasing "direct democracy" and adding "left-wing populism" violates Wikipedia and regulations.--삭은사과 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It was edited as the current document through discussion.(Discussion of Korean WP) Since this party is a minority party and lacks sources, it is impossible to describe all 'Ideology' through sources. Because of the specificity of minority parties, it was interpreted as an academic extension rather than a simple media source. This is also based on 'Wikipedia:Ignore all rules', and the preceding discussion also served as a basis. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have any objection, please refer to the English version discussion and the Korean version discussion first. This party 'ideology' belongs to deduce with exception of Direct democracy, whatever media source it uses. Therefore, the above specificity exists. --ALKMAION1000 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It is disgusting McCarthyism to claim that the Progressive Party are Marxists or Socialism. The ALKMAION1000 user is just a terrible alt-right troll who has stated in the user's lyrics that he opposes the LGBT human rights movement. here("성 소수자 운동 같은 것은 대중의 의식을 질식시키는 자본주의 퇴폐 풍속에 불과하다고 생각합니다.") 2001:2D8:643A:D0D5:2430:910C:46B9:799 (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Progressive Party is NOT far-left.

Of course, it is true that the Progressive Party is regarded as a far-left party in the context of South Korean politics. The reasons can be summarized in three main ways.

1. Pro-North Korea, but not at all interested in socialism. They oppose all forms of sanctions against North Korea.
2. It opposes imperialism in the United States, Japan and China. Oppose all unequal relations with major powers. The party strongly protested China's cultural appropriation, insisted that the Jiandao area be handed over to North Korea, abandoned all military and security treaties with the United States, and openly hated Japan.
3. They oppose an FTA with the United States. (However, Europe does not oppose the FTA with Europe because it does not bother South Korea.)

The reason why they are considered far left is simple. Suppose these policies were realized in South Korea. South Korea will have a huge economic collapse and a security crisis. That's it. That's why the Progressive Party is considered "far-left" in South Korea. There is no misunderstanding among South Koreans about this technology, but unfortunately, this is an English Wikipedia that people all over the world see. If you write "far-left" on infobox, this party could be misunderstood as a socialist party. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I think it is necessary to consider the source. A similar example is Japanese Communist Party, and this party is evaluated as left-wing to far-left. However, it is substantially more moderate than the The Left (Germany) party in Germany. In fact, I think the creation of a document should depend on its source. If you write it that way, JP is more moderate than Germany's SPD, so it's center-left.

The DPK is more conservative than the mainstream center-right in Germany, so it will be written as center-right Lazt9312 (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

JCP is no more moderate than DIE LiNKE. Communism is generally regarded as a far-left ideology, but socialism has a much wider spectrum. And while it is true that the DPK is more conservative in cultural policy than the German CDU, the CDU supports economic liberalism. DPK is less economically liberal than CDU. Your view is biased. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I will insist on the narration according to the source. Since there are only left-wing and far-left sources, it seems appropriate to describe it as left-left to far-left.

If there are many left-wing sources and the far-left sources are limited, it would be good to write down the leftist and limit ultra-leftism to the internal faction, but in fact, it seems difficult because there are more far-left sources.

https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2020031815423271321

https://www.naeponews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=3843

In addition, the Progressive Party has some pro-North Korean tendencies beyond pro-North Korea. Some members of the party are suspected of being under orders from North Korea.

https://news.jtbc.co.kr/article/article.aspx?news_id=NB12109953 Lazt9312 (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources you suggest are South Korean media. The New York Times and other U.S. media never describe this party as far left. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It must be written according to the source. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180130000855 Lazt9312 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You repeat the same thing. Political positions should not be changed only by what is written in some sources. The party does not meet the far-left standards defined in the English Wikipedia article Far-left Politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will write from left to far left. No source mentions it as centre-left. (I also don't think the Progressive Party is "far left" by international political standards, but it is mentioned in sources. In fact, by international standards, the dpk should also be center to centre-right.) Lazt9312 (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, it is also a problem that there does not seem to be a big difference from the moderate leftist parties such as the Green Party Korea if it is simply left-wing. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The footnote states that it is considered "far left" in the context of South Korean politics. And the example of DPK is inappropriate. The debate over whether a particular party is "centre-right" or not and the debate over whether a particular party is "far-left" or not is a completely different matter. Because the latter is a kind of political stigma. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the Green Party Korea is more far to the left than the Progressive Party. Because the Green Party Korea is more socialism in the context of Western politics. (However, I disagree with you adding "far-left" to infobox in the Green Party Korea article.) Mureungdowon (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

DSA is considered absolutely "far-left" in the context of American politics. However, the Democratic Socialists of America article in the English Wikipedia does not describe DSA as "far-left". The PP, considered far left in South Korea, is much more economically and socially moderate than the DSA. The reason why PP is considered far left is that it has anti-American, anti-Japanese, and even anti-Chinese, while also having very pro-North Korean feelings. They just want a very powerful form of 'self-determination'. What the hell does this have to do with the "far-left"???? (However, in the current Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017) article, it is well explained in a footnote that the party is considered to be the "far-left" in the context of South Korean politics.) Mureungdowon (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to provide evidence, not your opinion. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You disagree that the Justice Party is "left-wing". But why does the Progressive Party claim to be the "far-left"??? The two parties stand in solidarity with each other at election time. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Justice Party is "leftist". However, "mainstream" is not leftist, so the center left is the mainstream and the left is the non-mainstream. I don't think the Progressive Party is "far left." My position is that the Progressive Party takes a "left to far left" stance that is closer to the left. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the agreement is not going well. Why don't you do Wikipedia:Mediation? I have little experience with Wikipedia, but if the panelist agrees with moderation, I would appreciate it if you could apply for moderation. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't join the discussion without objection, I'll change it to left wing ~far raft wing description. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait until other users join the talk. We can't reach a conclusion even if we argue among ourselves. However, if you make a destructive edit that arbitrarily changes political position, I will cancel that edit. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, in order to follow the rules, you must maintain the extreme left in the original description, the left wing. Sorry to say destructive editing.

I will summarize my position on the ideology of the Progressive Party.

Since the Progressive Party is described as leftist or far-left, it should be described as left-wing or far-left. However, since I also do not consider the Progressive Party to be the far left, I will advocate limiting the far left as a faction.

left wing

Inner faction:

far left Lazt9312 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Opposite. This is English Wikipedia, not Korean Wikipedia or Namuwiki. It is unfair to regard PP as the far left only because of its diplomatic orientation, even though there is no extreme left ideological element. Mureungdowon (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear: There is no policy which states that using Korean language sources for English Wikipedia articles is prohibited, because such a policy would be stupid. The onus is on you to show how a Korean source was mistranslated, or why a particular source may be unreliable. Yue🌙 01:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the Progressive Party is a far-left party in the context of Korean politics. They have more moderate economic and social policies than Labor Party, and they do not have enough elements defined as far-left politics in Wikipedia. Labor Party is not a far-left party, so neither should the Progressive Party be considered far-left. Indeed, South Korean socialists go so far as to argue that the Progressive Party is not a left-wing party. The reference to the "far-left" should be limited to footnotes. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I support the relative representation of political positions in the information box according to the political environment of each country. But I do not support it if it is about extremism (far-right or far-left). Democratic Socialists of America are described as "far left" rather than "left-wing" in American media. However, there is no mention of the far left in the information box of the article itself. Unlike the DSA, the Progressive Party does not support socialism or anti-capitalism. In South Korea, the activities of far-left parties in the European or American sense are legally restricted or prohibited. Politicians like AOC in the United States who openly oppose capitalism are difficult to operate in the South Korea. Thus, within the scope of a legally active political party, it tends to be considered whether it is far left, none of which conforms to the far left of international political standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems difficult to reach an agreement, but what do you think about the use of mediation measures? If you agree, please apply and thank you.

In fact, I also agree that political parties that are far-left (ideological or even radical left) in the European sense are banned in Korea.

In fact, depending on the political party, the position of whether it is less by international standards or less by domestic standards has changed somewhat, which is a bit embarrassing. In fact, if that's the case, JP is also considered extreme in Korea. Koreans think JP is more extreme than PPP. Lazt9312 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that both international and domestic standards should be considered when considering the political position. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If you agree to request mediation, we would really appreciate it if you would request mediation. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Make an request mediation yourself. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

South Korea has historical experience of past colonial rule and the Korean War. Therefore, in South Korean politics, pro-Japan (even if it does not support racism or ultra-nationalism) is considered far-right, and pro-North Korea (even if it is a nationalist rather than a socialist) is considered far-left. However, we do not categorize the Anti-Japan Tribalism and Lee Young-hoon articles into the category of 'Far-right politics in South Korea' The main criteria for dividing the left–right political spectrum internationally are social equality and social hierarchy, not foreign policy. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Mediation requested. Lazt9312 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You clearly said: "In fact, I think it is necessary to consider the source." So why shouldn't the Justice Party be considered a left-wing party? You are excessively oriented towards an overtly friendly description of the Justice Party, and you are negatively portraying other parties. This is against NPOV. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

These should be considered in Mediation: The Korean Wikipedia describes the Progressive Party as the far left, but it was first added in 2019. The user who added it is an alt-right troller who claims to be a socialist but opposes LGBT rights. In South Korea, most socialists recognize the Progressive Party as a center-left "liberal" political party and actively support LGBT rights. And Namuwiki has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Media outside of Korea never describe the party as far left. The Progressive Party is far left in South Korea's political standards, but it does not meet the far left standards in Europe or the United States. (Lazt9312, too, acknowledged this.) Mureungdowon (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The mediation request failed due to my inexperience. Could the debater request mediation? Lazt9312 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I added this discussion to Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Yue🌙 04:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello @Lazt9312 and @Mureungdowon, I am responding to the third opinion request in this matter. At the outset, I note that discussions regarding a "left/right" political spectrum can be difficult as they raise issues of context: does a party's position on a political spectrum refer to how it is globally situated, or nationally situated? For this reason, it is important to be specific in our edits and avoid WP:SYNTH based on our own evaluation of different positions and attempting to weigh economic issues versus foreign policy issues and the like ourselves. Instead, we must reflect what the sources say, and giving each source its due weight. Please see WP:UNDUE in this regard. Although this is the English side of Wikipedia, Korean sources are perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is important that we do not limit ourselves to English sources or the anglophone countries. A helpful essay in this regard is WP:GLOBAL. Based on the sources brought forward to date, and cited in the article, "left-wing" is the majority characterization, although there was also a source cited on the talk page describing it as far-left (in this regard, please note that I am relying on machine translations and such translations may not be totally reliable). Unless the balance of sources changes, my recommendation is that you focus on describing the Progressive Party as primarily "left-wing." You may wish to note the contexts or grounds in which other reliable sources describe it as "far-left," but this should be addressed with specificity regarding its context. I hope this has been helpfl in resolving your differing views JArthur1984 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Therefore, I think infobox's political position should be written only as "left-wing," never as "left-wing to far-left". At the same time, however, you can mention through footnotes that the Progressive Party is considered the far-left in the South Korea. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with the "left wing" statement. Thanks to everyone who commented. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)