Talk:Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (2020)

Left-wing?
Looking at the sources that the party has said are "left-wing" parties, it fails to clearly explain the party’s position itself Rather, he seems to have used the word "Left-wing" to explain in a close-up with other left-wing parties.

We do not describe the political position of the Social Democratic Party of Germany as 'left-wing' even if there are sources who call both 'social Democratic Party of Germany' and 'die Link' as 'left-wing.'

No article clearly defines the party's position as "Left-wing" is in sight. Even if it were, we do not describe the party’s political position as "left-wing" just because it has a outlet that calls Germany’s Social Democratic Party "Left-wing."

In addition, CDPJ is a simple liberal party. Liberal parties are not usually described as "left-wing."--삭은사과 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Assent to 삭은사과's input. Jeff6045 let's talk! 07:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Why do you hide the fact that CDP is called leftwing? --Loup and Law (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is because there is no source that has been dubbed the party’s ideological "Left-wing." The sources in the documents are only those that are referred to as "left-wing" when referring to various political parties. The source of the document did not call the CDPJ alone "left-wing." When referring to various political parties, they are merely referring to them as leftists by clumping them together with other parties. The source reading "Spain's left-wing parts include Podemos and PSOE." does not indicate "PSOE" as "Left-wing." --삭은사과 (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, thank you!--Loup and Law (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

How to handle new party?
So the newly merged party is set to launch in a couple days and as a result the current CDP (the party this article is about) will technically be defunct. However the new party is retaining both Edano as leader as well as the CDP name. How should we handle this? Should the new party get a new article or should we just incorporate it into the history of the current article? Personally I think the latter makes more sense, although it is complicated by the fact that the current CDP is technically going to be dissolved and the "new" CDP is technically an entirely new party. Thoughts? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As per the current edits, currently I think that we should keep this article intact for the enlargened version of the party that will officially 15 September, rather than creating a separate article. That may change as events unfold, of course.--Autospark (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that since it's officially an entirely new party, it should be a separate article. This is the same argument I used at Talk:Kibō no Tō. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should make certain that it's a new party, legally or otherwise, and not just a 'relaunch', before we create a separate article. The party's website and social media accounts – and the party name and logo – remain the same, which was not the case when the DPJ became Minshinto back in 2016.--Autospark (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like the branding is remaining exactly the same, including all web and social media accounts. I think that strengthens the argument that we should keep it within the current article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do remember that they had some convention to discuss what to name the new party, though; wouldn't that strengthen the other argument (making a new article)? Ezhao02 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The situation is that it's legally an entirely new party but for all intents and purposes it's basically just the previously existing CDP but with the majority of the DFFP absorbed into it. An extra complication is that 14 members of the former DPFP have actually split and are continuing the DPFP under the same name... Hahaha... Japanese politics are never simple it seems. For what it's worth, the Japanese Wikipedia created a new article for the 2020 CDP. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, do you know what they did with Kibō no Tō? Ezhao02 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like they made a new article for the new Kibo also. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, they are separated articles as ja:立憲民主党 (日本) and ja:立憲民主党 (日本 2020-) on Japanese Wikipedia. Northern Moonlight

Does the Japanese government have a website where we can check if they are officially new parties? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like the parties (CDPJ and DPFP) were officially dissolved and recreated, according to this website. Under the entry for 2020-09-14, there are four things, two talking about the dissolutions of these parties, and two talking about their recreation. (I'm using Google Translate to check this, so I could be wrong.) Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have created a draft article to prepare for a split at Draft:Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (2020) Please contribute if possible. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's necessary to separate this document. There is no need to follow the Japanese version, and I don't think the CDPJ's position has changed significantly in the context of Japanese politics.--Storm598 (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to just describe the 2020 CDP(J) in this document. I oppose the separation of documents.--Storm598 (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Storm598 – I'd rather keep this as an individual article, with the recent expansion of the party being noted in the article text.--Autospark (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. If we do that, I think this article should make it clearer that the two CDPJ's are officially separate parties. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The political position of the CDP.
I think it is right to describe the political position of the party as "Centre to centre-left" because the CDP is not a general "Centre-left" social democratic party and the party does not show a populist tendency. I object to simply describing CDP as 'Centre-left'. Unlike old CDP, there are clearly conservatives in the new CDP.--Storm598 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Social liberal parties are generally classified as 'Centre to centre-left'. This is the same in neighboring South Korea, and it is usually the same in Europe and other regions. Even in English Wikipedia articles related to American politics, it is common to write "Centre to centre-left" as the political position of the U.S. Democratic Party by State. Even articles from the Vermont Democratic Party or the Democratic Party of Virginia, which are parties in the strong Blue-state region of the Democratic Party, describe it as "Centre to centre-left", not simply as "Centre-left". (the United States is a two-party country, not a multi-party country like Japan or South Korea. That's why the U.S. Democratic Party is not in the position of "Centre" in American politics.) I don't know why this should be an exception only in Japanese politics. CDP before 2020 can also be seen as a simple "Centre-left" because it had a progressive nature, but CDP now has conservatives, so it is correct to write "Centre to centre-left", not "Centre-left". --Storm598 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In order for CDP to become a simple "Centre-left" rather than a "Centre to Centre-left," it must at least show a social democratic tendency like Taiwan's DPP. Otherwise, at least there should be at least a certain number of people in the CDP who show radical tendencies, including anti-capitalism, like Reiwa Shinsengumi. However, the CDP is a general liberal party that never shows such a position.--Storm598 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the CDP is "Centre-left" rather than "Centre to centre-left", then even more progressive U.S. Democratic Party should be simply considered "Centre-left" and should never be considered "Centre to centre-left". CDP is NOT such a progressive and left-wing party at all.--Storm598 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, unlike DPK, CDP has no social conservative tendency. However, compared to the U.S. Democratic Party, it can be seen as relatively social conservative, and even they are not very free from right-wing Japanese nationalism. Japanese nationalism is not anti-imperialism or resistance nationalism, but imperial and hegemony nationalism, so it is close to right, not left. The left basically supports social and economic equality, and the left-wing nationalist movements of South Korea and Taiwan are related to these things, but Japanese nationalism has mostly flowed in an imperial and right-wing direction. The CDP is not a perfectly free party in the social conservatism and nationalism of the right-wing camp in Japan.--Storm598 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason why CDP is considered "left-wing" among the Japanese public in Japan is that Japan has historically ruled by the LDP, a conservative right-wing party, and liberals are not popular. Neighbors, South Korea and the United States, have been in power with liberals and conservatives in check with each other, so liberals are not perceived as "left-wing" or "radical" forces. South Korea's PPP and the U.S. GOP also existed as opposition parties, but Japan's LDP was mostly in the ruling party's position in Japanese history. However, CDP is clearly "Centrist" in the context of international politics.--Storm598 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose this – “centre to centre-left” is tautological, and places WP:UNDUE (and arguably WP:RECENTISM) a single media source, when overwhelmingly say “centre-left”. Your attempts at intentional comparisons are borderline WP:SYNTH as well. Most sources describe the CDP(J) as centre-left, and the article should reflect this.—Autospark (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is only your subjective POV that CDP is overwhelmingly described as "centre-left" after September 2020.  In addition to this, I can bring more sources that CDP is a "centrist" party. Since it is never a single source, the "centre to centre-left" in the infobox must be maintained at least until the end of the Talk.--Storm598 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true that CDPs before September 2020 were clearly described as "centre-left opposition party" in numerous media outlets. However, articles referring to the CDP since September 2020 usually refer to the "opposition party" without mentioning political positions. I've looked up countless data related to the "centre-left" regarding the CDP's political position, but most of them were related to CDP before September 2020. Since September 2020, the CDP has become a party close to big tent, so political positions are not often described in the media. (Since "new CDP" and "old CDP" are officially different political parties, there is no need to overly consider articles before September 2020 when presenting the current political position of CDP.) --Storm598 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That is your own WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, plus "centre to centre-left" is tautological anyway (and confusing for the reader).--Autospark (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there are reliable sources that clearly mentioned "centrist," and it's close to "original research" to try to deny it even though it's not a minority opinion. Once again, the new CDP and the old CDP are related, but they are definitely different parties in many ways. This has to be made clear.--Storm598 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, even if it is a repetitive expression, it should be clarified because there is a clear difference between the old CDP before September 2020 and the current new CDP. "centre to centre-left" and simple "centre-left / progressive" are very different.--Storm598 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is room for confusion, I think it's okay to erase the "A" footnote itself. However, I object to writing down the CDP's political position as (with the phrase "Centre" excluded) "Centre-left". Or it would be nice to separate "old CDP" and "new CDP" articles altogether. In the past, I used to be in a position that I didn't have to separate them, but now I think it's right to separate them. --Storm598 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good-faith reply, and use of references; I will move the Footnote A section to the Ideology section (as well the references for the political position, as per WP:INFOBOX. I am on some level sympathetic to the idea of separate "old" and "new" party articles, but it would involve creating separate articles for the post September 2020 DPP as well, which would be even smaller articles. For now, I think the best solution is to keep a single CDP(J) article, but note any ideological and organisation changes with its mergers with the DPP (and SDP). (Incidentally, please let me know your opinions the edits I have made as moves towards a consensus.)--Autospark (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Then I'll change it like this.
 * The article "new CDP" will be changed to an article dealing with CDP after 2020. (The title of the article is changed to "Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (2020)".)
 * Political position : "Centre to centre-left"
 * Create a new "old CDP" article. (The title of the article is "Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (2017)".
 * Also, let's separate the DPP drivers in the same!--Storm598 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but you misunderstood my position – I support keeping the existing articles for both the CDPJ and DPP, as is the status quo, not splitting either of the articles. I’d rather describe any notable differences between pre- and post- merger CDPJ in the article body, and maintain a single article on the CDPJ.—Autospark (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you object to dividing an article into two, it is difficult to accept it unless you agree to change the current article's political position to "Centre to Centre-left". The two articles must be separated to provide more accurate information to readers. Obviously, "old CDP" and "new CDP" are legally different political parties.--Storm598 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose splitting the article
Can I ask Storm598 to return to consensus and re-merge the two articles on CDPJ? There is no consensus to split the articles, and I as an individual editor strongly oppose it.--Autospark (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's right to split the article. At least articles are separated in the Korean, Chinese, and Japanese versions.--Storm598 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus to make such a bold move, and other language wikis have no bearing upon how we organise en.wiki articles. Also, the formatting of keeping a single article was already agreed upon (see "How to handle new party"). If you wish to make drastic changes to the article, go through proper channels and seek a new consensus.--Autospark (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The agreement was actually led by me. Ezhao02 suggested separating the article into two, and I opposed the opinion at the time, but now I'm in a different position. I think it's right to separate the two articles because the old CDJ and the new CDJ are legally different and the political position is different.--Storm598 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant – seek new consensus first. Unilateral action by a single user like this is borderline vandalism.—Autospark (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought Autospark agreed to separate the article, but I must have read it wrong. Why do you oppose the separation of articles? Shouldn't we separate the articles to provide clearer information? (And I will try to make Ezhao02, who participated in the talk last time, participate in the talk now.) --Storm598 (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The old CDP and the new CDP are legally completely different parties, and their political positions are different. That's why separating articles into two can provide readers with much more accurate information.--Storm598 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is misrepresentation – I did not agree to separate the article – my position has always been that while I understand some of the arguments in favour of splitting, I strongly support retaining a single article on the party. I do not see the need to create two small articles rather than a single one, when any changes to the party's organisation or positions can be noted within the article body (based on referenced material from reliable sources, of course). It's inevitable that political parties change organisationally and in terms of policies and even ideologies, but that does not in itself warrant continually creating new, much smaller articles.--Autospark (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to separate the two articles and place a completely different logo used by the two parties as an image in the infobox. I will clearly highlight the difference between the two parties, both legally and ideologically. I want you to agree with my plan. old CDP logo new CDP logo (In the first place, dealing with a legally different political party in one article causes many errors and problems.) --Storm598 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's take another example. If old CDP and new CDP used different names, we would definitely separate the two articles. There is not enough justification to make an exception just because the same party name is used.--Storm598 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You must seek WP:CONSENSUS for those moves! You have been told clearly that there is no consensus for splitting the articles, and that I strongly oppose such a move. (And no, a political party changing its logo is no argument for creating split articles – most political parties alter their logos and electoral marketing over time.) What you are doing is blatantly WP:WAR.--Autospark (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well... Then, it's better to listen to other users' opinions.--Storm598 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My recommendation is to expand the article with information that you can find, especially regarding the September 2020 period, and then start the WP:RFC process on the talk page regarding the split. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Vacant0 that is what I prefer, expanding upon the existing article with more referenced material; any changes since September 2020 have and can be described. However, splitting the articles will be problematic in terms of researching sources for the article, as many English language sources do not necessarily treat the parties as separate (besides, essentially both CDPJs, if one ever considers them separate parties in practice, are a post-DPJ/DP party formed by former DPJ/DP politicians). The compromise form of a single article as it currently exists operates without problem. Additionally, there’s no requirement to create a new article for a political party once it has absorbed a smaller party (e.g. we kept the same article for the Romanian PNL after its recent absorption of the smaller PDL; there is no separate articles for the history of Irish Labour Party after it merged with the Democratic Left, etc]]).—Autospark (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think they should be separate articles because the parties are legally different. Additionally, if I remember correctly, the CDPJ and the DPFP were of roughly equal size before the merger. However, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for such a merger right now. (Another example of a page that was not split is the "Save Romania Union" article.) Ezhao02 (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)