Talk:Democratic Party of Korea/Archive 1

Center-left?
"또 `우클릭` 논란을 겪을 정도로 올해 안보행보를 보여온 김 대표의 가치관과 "경제는 진보, 안보는 보수"라고 주장해온 안 위원장의 지론이 결합해 `신당은 튼튼한 안보를 바탕으로 한반도 평화를 구축하고 통일을 지향한다`는 문구를 만들어냈다. —Source: 매경뉴스 (in Korean)"

See the part of your source. And stop the vandalism, please. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop the edit warring and see the part of your source, too. --Idh0854 (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The principles of centrist conservatism are not incompatible with those of centre-left. Also, stop the edit warring and join this talk. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This source says that they have economic progressivism so which mentioned about that the NPAD located on the centre-left position. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, conservatism and the right wing are not the same things. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this source says that they located on the centre-right position Becuase of Kim han-gill dose "Right-click" at national security, and Ahn Cheol-soo has "economic progressivism and national security conservatism"). And conservatism located on right wings position. So, it is no problem. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any political parties think that National Security is important. The South Korean Democratic Party, the whole body of the NPAD had suffered by Saenuri's attack. So the NPAD have emphasised national security. It's not unprecedented. Their ideology almost not changed from the Democratic Party era. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is also your private opinion without source. Unified Progressive, Labor and Green etc don't saying about National Security. Because this parties located on left-wing position. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New Politics Alliance for Democracy is the centre-right parties.  우익=right wing, 중도보수=centre-Conservatism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzbuzzwili (talk • contribs) 04:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just a Chung Dong-young's claim. He is more left-wing than the NPAD. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Moon Jae-in was on pilgrimage to the tomb Park Chung-hee. (Park Chung-hee = Right-wing politicians), Centrism party = NPAD (Not left-wing), Cunter-left party = Justice Party --Buzzbuzzwili (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Korean Wikipedia = New Politics Alliance for Democracy is Centre-Right(중도우파) ~ Centrim(중도주의) Party--Buzzbuzzwili (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Japanese Wikipedia = New Politics Alliance for Democracy is Centre-Right(中道保守) Party--Buzzbuzzwili (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Chinnese Wikipedia = New Politics Alliance for Democracy is Centrims(中間派) Party--Buzzbuzzwili (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't use the wiki as a source and we must use the third party source, not the party's self declaration. See Verifiability. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For example, if Barack Obama pilgrimaged to the tomb of Ronald Reagan, that makes Obama as a right-wing politician? No, that's not the case. Pilgrimaging is just a Pilgrimaging. It's not related about political ideology or spectrum. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many third party sources declare that Democratic United Party, which is an antecedent of the NPAD, as a centre-left political party. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Redux
Aside from your removal of cited material, I don't really understand what you mean by your reference to the Democratic Party in your edit summary. "Centre", "centre-left" etc. are not American terms (in fact they're originally French), and centre-left parties can be very different in different countries. In any case, we follow the reliable sources in these descriptions, and I am confident that the vast majority of reliable sources refer to the Minjudang as a centre/centre-left party. I'm slightly confused since in the discussion above from 2 years ago, as far as I understand, you seem to have been arguing that this party is centre-left. — Nizolan  (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2016: "The" in article name

 * 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: move. General consensus to move (non-admin closure). SST flyer 03:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The Minjoo Party of Korea → Minjoo Party of Korea – Per WP:DEFINITE and WP:COMMONNAME as translation (irrespective of the party's official use of "The"). Contrary to 's reasoning, the vast majority of the English sources do not capitalise the "the"; see this Google News search (and my analysis of the first 10 results as of 28 March 2016 below, and the following sources: Bloomberg, CBS, ABC, Yonhap (!), Deutsche Welle, BBC, The Diplomat, The Economist). — Nizolan  (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose The party's name is Deobureo-minju-dang. Deo (The, 더) is very important. The official website always uses "The Minjoo": Home > About The Minjoo > Leadership of The Minjoo . The short name for The Minjoo Party of Korea is The Minjoo, not Minjoo, not Minjoo of Korea. Sawol (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deobureo (더불어) is one word meaning "together", as presumably you know. It has nothing to do with "the", since Korean is not a language that uses articles. My argument for the move is that WP:COMMONNAME prevails over the official use of "The"; I'd appreciate a response to that. — Nizolan  (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PR Chairperson of The Minjoo said, (via Joongang Ilbo) "약칭인 ‘더민주’를 영문명에서도 살리려고 ‘The Minjoo’로 표현했다". Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we know what the official name is. My argument, like I said just above and in the nom, is that WP:COMMONNAME overrides the official name in translation per WP:NCPARTY ("... unless that translation differs from the majority of other English-language sources"), and in the case of the short form it is also ambiguous in English since the Minjoo Party (2014) may also be referred to as "the Minjoo Party". Incidentally the Joongang Ilbo itself is not following that guideline per the citations I gave below to their English website. — Nizolan  (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Info See the The Minjoo 's website. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article amounts to roughly 120 words. Perhaps finding references, specifically from Korean newspaper written in English, could help to expand the article, and even to decide what is the most used English name of the 더불어민주당 (MPK). Pldx1 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided a link to Google News above. Let's run through each of the links presently on the first page:
 * Extended content: Google News analysis


 * |home|newslist1 – "Minjoo" in article title, no "the"
 * – "Minjoo" in article title, no "the"; "the Minjoo Party" in lower case in article text
 * – "Minjoo" in article title, no "the"; "the Minjoo Party" in lower case in article text
 * – "Minjoo Party" in lower case in article text; "the main opposition Minjoo Party of Korea", no "The"
 * |home|newslist1 – "Minjoo" in article title, no "the"; "the Minjoo Party" in lower case in article text
 * – "The Minjoo"
 * – both forms used in article text, "Minjoo Party" used in title
 * – "the Minjoo Party" in lower case in article text; "MPK" used as short form
 * – "Minjoo" in article title, no "the"; "the Minjoo Party" in lower case in article text
 * – "Minjoo Party" in article title, no "the";
 * That makes one instance of "The Minjoo" vs. 8 instances of "Minjoo" with no capitalisation and one instance of both. The COMMONNAME (or common usage) seems pretty clear me; it's hard to do a big-data search since Google isn't caps-sensitive, but I'm not sure what you can really expect from a more detailed attempt to find references either. — Nizolan  (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain to me why we don't translate "minjoo"? I see no reason not to. There is nothing special about "民主" as I know it from Japanese that requires the use of a transliteration, so what about the Korean use of these characters necessitates "minjoo" as opposed to "democratic"? The present construction is confusing. Previous Korean parties that included these characters in their name have been called "Democratic" on Wikipedia, such as Democratic Party (South Korea, 2008). RGloucester  — ☎ 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, at a personal level I agree with you that it's odd, but it seems the media has followed the party's decision one or two years ago not to translate their name. So "Minjoo" is, I guess, currently the COMMONNAME. I'm not sure there are any sources referring to it as the Democratic Party at this stage. Either way, I would think that not having the "The" in the page title is preferable, given that very few sources use it in the proper name other than the party themselves. — Nizolan  (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Remark The Minjoo Party of Korea = 더불어민주당 (Deobureo-minju-dang), The Minjoo = 더민주 (Deo-minju), whereas Minjoo Party of Korea = 한국민주당, 코리아민주당, just 민주당 (Minju-dang). This is never 한국민주당, 코리아민주당, 민주당. The thing which 더불어 (Deobureo) translates as is only "The". Sawol (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I already responded to this when you first claimed it above, but, again, 더불어 does not mean "the" (according to this very article, in fact) and, per WP:ENGLISH in general and WP:NCPARTY in particular, Wikipedia isn't supposed to judge translations itself. — Nizolan  (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. 더불어 means "The" (Deo). Similarly 민주 means Minjoo. Sawol (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you're free to claim that—we can ask an independent Korean-speaking editor whether 더불어 means "the" if you wish, but the sources are against you —but, once more: it doesn't matter what it means, because on Wikipedia we follow the WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NCPARTY makes clear that Wikipedia does not endeavour to translate foreign party names itself. The question, therefore, is not whether 더불어 means "the", or what English name Korean-language sources use, but the name used in the relevant English-language literature: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." You haven't cited any Wikipedia guidelines showing otherwise yet. — Nizolan  (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * According to User:Sawol, 더불어민주당  is "The Minjoo Party of Korea" while  더민주 is "The Minjoo". Thus (더불어민주당) - (더민주) =  (불어당) is "The Minjoo Party of Korea" - "The Minjoo" = "Party of Korea". Why did I have a slight doubt ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Took me a while to get, but ha — Nizolan  (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 더불어 cannot be divided into 더 and 불어. 불어 doesn't mean anything.
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Hangul !Romanization !Meaning !English !Note !colspan=2|Abbreviation
 * 더불어
 * deobureo
 * together, along with, in company with
 * The
 * phonetic twins deo, the
 * 더
 * The
 * 민주
 * minju
 * democratic
 * Minjoo
 * 민주
 * Minjoo
 * 당
 * dang
 * party
 * Party
 * of Korea
 * supplementary information
 * }
 * Sawol (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * of Korea
 * supplementary information
 * }
 * Sawol (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * of Korea
 * supplementary information
 * }
 * Sawol (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * supplementary information
 * }
 * Sawol (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * }
 * Sawol (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. 더불어 means unified, so that 더불어민주당 means Unified Democratic Party, while 더불어 cannot divided into 더 and 불어. In fact, the very idea of dividing a word that means "united" looks strange. It remains the question of the usual name in English language. The Korea Times uses MPK (Minju Party of Korea). Maybe they know what they are doing. Pldx1 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unified Democratic Party is something of a misnomer. 통합민주당 used Unified Democratic Party. The Hankyoreh uses TMPK (The Minjoo Party of Korea). Sawol (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Sawol. The word "means" means "has the meaning of". Therefore 더불어민주당  means Unified Democratic Party. You are saying that 통합민주당 also means  Unified Democratic Party. Yes, I agree. Thus, if we were playing to creating new names, we could use Unified Democratic Party (2014) and Unified Democratic Party (2011).  But, as others have already said, the game here is to analyse what sources in English are saying. Pldx1 (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom - all this analysis of Korean characters and words above is irrelevant, as there are enough English sources around to guide us, and as says, WP:NCPARTY does not suggest translating party names ourselves. In English sources, "the Minjoo Party" (non-title THE), or indeed "Minjoo Party", seem to predominate.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Words have various meanings. Therefore, I suggest using "sources in English" rather than "English sources". And in this respect, "Korean sources in English", and international Korean newspapers in English language among them, are surely useful. Pldx1 (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's indeed what Wikipedia policy states ("independent, reliable English-language sources" from WP:COMMONNAME), but I think it's what meant in any case. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I don't mean only sources from England, I mean "independent, reliable English-language sources", exactly as you say. That would include, but is not limited to, Korean published English-language reliable sources. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per the nominator's rationale. It does seem clear that most English-language sources don't use the "the".--Cúchullain t/ c 20:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note South Korean legislative election was held on 13 April 2016. Reports of the election will be rife. Let's wait and see which name be used, especially in English-speaking world. (eg. Korean newspapers in English language use Choo Shin-soo, but Shin-Soo Choo is used in English-speaking world.)
 * the said party
 * National Assembly (South Korea)
 * The Hankyoreh
 * The Dong-a Ilbo
 * The Korea Herald
 * International Business Times (English-speaking world)
 * use "The Minjoo Party (of Korea)". Sawol (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the vast majority of current English coverage still doesn't use "The": Bloomberg, CBS, ABC, Yonhap (!), Deutsche Welle, BBC, The Diplomat, Economist, etc. etc. Almost all the sources using "The" appear to be Korean, not original English. I've added these to the nomination above. — Nizolan  (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per above. This stylisation is not reflected in most sources.  —  AjaxSmack   01:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Arguments are convincing that "the" is not part of the official title, and WP:DEFINITE is clear on the matter. My first impression when I saw this at ITN was that the title of the article was against the MOS, to be honest. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2016 (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.

Political positions?
There doesn't appear to be any explanation of the party's political positions whatsoever. What do they stand for? 2601:182:C800:719F:D455:B489:6793:2EA0 (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Parties in South Korea generally last for only a few years, particularly on the liberal side, so they often don't have much of an identity of their own. "Liberal" is the best you get in most English sources, and there is a small amount of detail at Liberalism_in_South_Korea. Not sure how it can be better integrated into the article. — Nizolan  (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Democratic Party of Korea (South Korea, 2015). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160425154538/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/12/116_193056.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/12/116_193056.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422193441/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr:80/www/news/nation/2016/04/116_203137.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/04/116_203137.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Title should be changed to "Democratic Party of Korea"
[Announcement] The Minjoo Party of Korea Announces Its New Official English Name: Democratic Party of Korea (DPK)[]

They officially changed their English name to "Democratic Party of Korea" on 19 October, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeitcH (talk • contribs) 13:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - OK, adding the request subst., and FYI more references here: #, #, and # Estas  Erad De. , aŭ moknomo  [krǽniːzjər] ... 젠장, option이 안먹힐 줄 몰랐군.  00:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Change the name to Democratic Party of Korea

 * ...Isn't this a duplicate of former section? Moreover this section is empty. Estas  Erad De. , aŭ moknomo  [krǽniːzjər] ... 젠장, option이 안먹힐 줄 몰랐군.  00:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 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: Page moved. --  Dane talk  02:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Minjoo Party of Korea → Democratic Party of Korea – Reverted their official name after merging with Minjoo Party (2014). Estas  Erad De. , aŭ moknomo  [krǽniːzjər] ... 젠장, option이 안먹힐 줄 몰랐군.  00:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per official announcement and WP:UE (Minjoo isn't English). Timmyshin (talk) 22:12, 16 March 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.

Recent warning on DPK's ideology
The party is described as centrist or liberal by majority of reliable foreign media. The party can't have social democracy or liberal socialism as ideology. However some users are keep editing article with improper sources. The main reason that the article is semi-protected is to protect article frome those sources. The users who have different opinion on this issue is free to discuss about it. However do not add those sources with out specific discussion. Jeff6045 06:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

Well, I think I've already told you enough. Here is my last comment and you've never refuted this argument. "You must pay attention to the fact that all of my edits about the party's ideology were arranged on *Factions* sector. 1. If the party seeks to convert nation's identity from the LibDem to the value-neutral democracy, it can be considered as a proof that the several party members support SocDem(or even People's democracy) since removing liberty from the nation is the first step of their system remodeling. 2. As you know, the strength of Minister Cho-guk's political power at presidential majority party is an open secret. This fact implies that there are many faithful believers of Minister Cho who support their religious leader's socialism ideology, which can be also called *Liberal socialism* since minister Cho described himself a Liberal-Socialist. I hope this explanation helps you." If I have to say one more thing, I'll say that it is no surprise that DPK has such a radical socialist faction, since the party is partially based on the Natioanl Liberation group, whose purpose was a violent revolution which could lead korean nation to the Proletarian Dictatorship.--Sm5278 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

, Nope the party is described as centrist by majority of mainstream media. You'r opinion is completely biased and based on south korean's ultra-conservatives theory. Do not edit article due to your own view. I had already made refute on your sources. Also do not edit article with out any discussion. And please read article about Liberalism in South Korea. The party is not social-democratic or liberal socialist. The party is centrist liberal political party. I'm going to do whatever I can do to protect the article from unnecessary sources. Jeff6045 07:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

, I think you're quiet young, Right? It is an untouchable fact that DPK's historical origin can be traced by checking two existed revolutionary group of south korea. First, there was the 'National Liberation' group, who followed DPRK's Jucheism. And the other was the 'People's Democracy' group, who followed the international socialism of Soviet union. Of course they had collapsed after the fall of berlin wall, but they found a means of escape in the coalition with kim dae-jung, former president of ROK. That was the begining of DPK's leftists group. Understand? Of course there are liberal politicians in DPK, but what I want to say is that there are also socialist politicians in DPK. Foreign observers can't catch everthing. Korean know Korea best. Please check this article. Check --Sm5278 (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm young man in south korea. But I know radical anti-comminist stances porduced by far-right Liberty korea party. I think you have very big mistake on your understanding on the party. I just want to ask one simple question. In Spain the rulling government party is Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, also in portugal, rulling Socialist Party (Portugal) has made government with support of Unitary Democratic Coalition. In your view these two governments are communist regime that follows North korea? Jeff6045 08:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

, Well, I think that's out of point, but if you want my answer, I'll say that european parties which call themselves a socialist party, are no more socialists. But you know what? Social Democratic Party of Germany, which is one of the famous 'Self-calling socialist party of Europe', had followed Marxism and refused parliamentary politics at 19th ceuntry. You must knows that 'Socialism' and 'Democracy(which means Western democracy, not people's democracy or blahblahblah)' can't co-exist. Nowadays in europe, the term 'Socialism' is just empty word, as you can see at SDP's embracing Western democracy. Real-Socialism inevitably restrict human dignity and free-will, since socialism is an ideology which depends on governmental authority, like fascism. That's why european socialist parties renounced socialism, and made term 'socialism' just a conventional slogan. While Europe's Socialism means just expanding public welfare, DPK's socialists express their respect for DPRK's Juche-socialism and Chienese nationalistic socialism. This is the difference between Europe and Korea. UNDERSTAND? Now, If you agree with the fact that DPK has socialist politicians, i want to close this discussion. --Sm5278 (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

, I think your very biased. Please read this article and rethink your opinion. . Also I want you to know that social democracy is just another type of socialism.(more moderate one) Lastly there is no duty for me to answer your questions that have no relevant with article. Please read wikipedia policy. Your edits appear to constitute a clear WP:POINTy behaviour. This will be my last message on this talk page. If you keep doing this behavior, I have no choice but to report you. Please read wikipedia policy better. Wikipedia is'nt a place to edit on your own view, but actually it is a place to edit with rational sources. If you want to know what is conisdered as reliable source in wikipedia please read Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Jeff6045 09:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see, Jeff (and whoever else is changing things), how you are able to make such an unfounded and non-consensus claim (within political science) and then demand that nobody touches it or else that person is a vandal violating Wikipedia rules. That isn't how this works. You need to make an objective case backed by low bias sources, not opinions, that shows a reason to change a long standing consensus that has stayed the same for quite some time now. So, I will be removing any ideologies other than "Liberalism", "Social Liberalism", and "Korean Reunification", and I invite you to make your case here instead of trying to hold us hostage. This is not vandalism, this is the process for ensuring that Wikipedia does not spread misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja0428 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

, Fitstly I want to thank for your input. If my edit is against Wikipedia policy I'm willing to give up my revision immediately. I'm always open to wp users opinion and edit. However last claim that has been made by Sm5278 is clearly against WP policy. His behavior on this article is WP:POINTy. He is keep uploading improper sources that make this article Semi-protected. I'm always open to your opinion and willing to discuss on this talk page abouy my edit. If you think I made mistake I want to apologize for you. Jeff6045 23:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I've found a reliable work which had been supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea. link "After a series of economy‐first, right‐leaning governments, South Korea is experiencing an unexpected surge of social democracy‐oriented policy reform under the Moon Jae‐in administration. Considering that this country has no previous experience with socialism of any form (speaking of the southern half of the peninsula, of course), this is a trend that is worthy of attention." "Several episodes show how the Moon administration has sought to demonstrate its new social‐democratic policy stance. An illustration of the distinctive stance that the president has taken towards labour was his highly symbolic meeting with atypical workers at Incheon International Airport in May 2017, one of his first official appointments after being elected." As you can see, this work describes kim administration and roh adminisration, which have been considered as the conventional democratic governments, a liberal government. On the other hand, the paper analyzes DemGov of Nowadays in Korea as a social-democratic government and explain why those diffrences between Old-DemGov and New-DemGov have been occured. So i suggest that stating liberalism as a historical-ideology of DPK and Social-democracy as a modern-ideology of it will be a best choice.--Sm5278 (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

, I'm getting tired of this. Do you even know that social democracy is based on liberal democracy and market economy? Also I think you hadn't read Reliable sources/Perennial sources yet. The source is just an opinion, it is not considered to be reliable in Wikipedia. Jeff6045 06:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am so sorry but The Political Quarterly, in which the work has been published, is a reliable British political academic journal founded in 1930. You must read this regulation. ''Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.'' I am so tired of your ideological-biasedness and illogical discussing stance. If you can't present the logical reason to refuse my source this time, the talk shall be closed.--Sm5278 (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles Also if there is dispute of input discussion is first thing to do before you edit article. Please read WP policy better. Jeff6045 07:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

Defining the work's analysis a original research is your own view. The regulation don't serve for your arbitrary interpretation. Stating Moon administration as a Progressive-SocDem Gov is the widely embraced view. Link1 Link2--Sm5278 (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the source used to support the party having "anti-Japanese sentiment" (which is in of itself not a political ideology anyway) quoted a Korean opposition party. The view of one party on another is not a statement of fact. Secondly, the sources used to support "pro-Juche" said the party is "pro-North Korea", which is not the same as pro-Juche. This violates Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH rule. All claims must be stated explicitly by the source used. Helper201 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm so tired of your childness. You're just saying that the source which suits your taste is a reliable source, and which does not is a unreliable source or a original research. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. --Sm5278 (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

, One of your sources is from blog. Blog is not considered reliable source in WP. Also I have already mentioned you that person's opinion is not reliable. It is just one academic journal's opinion. You may add the party is described as social democratic by one of foreign obsevers but it is not appropriate to add social democracy in party's ideology. Please see the article about Left Bloc. The left bloc is not considered as far-left or extrimists by foriegn observer but in info-box the party's position is described as left-wing to far-left. Also The Left (Germany) is not considered as far-left by Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution but however the party includes far-left on its political spectrum. Wikipedia doesn't reflect people's or group's opinion. It only includes objective source from reliable media. Please read Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In addition if there is argument on subject it is first to discuss on talk page befor edit. Jeff6045 08:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Social democracy?
I have seen some inputs that the party has social democracy as ideoloy. However the party's leader Lee Hae-chan denied the party as being called as progressive pary. Actually he claims his party as a centre-right political party. I haven't seen any of the party advocates social democracy but actually describing their party as centre-right. I have seen historical social democratic party such as Social Democratic Party (Portugal). (Historically the party persuits social democracy but now the party is major centre-right political party in portugal.) But I have never seen the party describe it self as social democratic but actually advocates centre-right politics. I think this can be very argumentative issue. Jeff6045 09:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Party color
The current darker blue color (as seen on Template:Democratic Party of Korea/meta/color) seems to be hard to distinguish from other blues used by other parties. According to the party's guidelines, a lighter blue color (#00A0E2) would be acceptable as well. There also exist several other intermediate colors which could potentially be chosen as stated on that webpage such as #0B7B93, #0B68B3, #0A529C, #008CCD, etc. Would anyone be in favor of shifting the color (even if temporarily) to the light blue one or any of the alternatives to avoid confusion? HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

social conservatism
I think we should specify social conservatism in the infobox. In a number of social issues, including sexual minorities, the disabled and abortion, the party took a clear conservative view in Western political standards. (South Korea belongs to an advanced country.) I can't agree that it can't be used as a source unless the stance against homosexuality is directly stated as "social conservatism" in the first place. If the rules are applied in a doctrinal way, many party-related documents in Wikipedia, other than those in question, must be broken down. In particular, DPK is a party that advocates "social liberalism", so I think it is necessary to provide additional explanations.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In South Korean politics, such terms as 'social conservatism' are rarely used. Its conservative stance on policies against homosexuality and abortion, treatment and isolation-oriented policies for the disabled is clearly "social conservatism" that is opposed to "social liberalism." An explanation for this is clearly necessary. The party has a traditionalist tendency that its political position is only close to social liberalism but does not conform in part to "social liberalism." If this is not written in the infobox, those who read the document are likely to recognize the DPK as a "socially liberal" party in the general political and philosophical sense.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Social liberalism does not refer to strictly "social" stances. Rather, it is a form of liberalism that encompasses both social and economic issues, and it is accurate to use the label to describe the Democratic Party of Korea as a whole, as many reliable sources have done. Generalizing to "social conservatism" from a few articles that describe the DPK's relatively conservative position on homosexuality (compared to liberal parties in other countries) is original research, in particular WP:SYNTH. Per policy, I am going to remove this from the infobox, but we should work on including the information in the article body under "Policies." RedHotPear (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Talk:Minjung Party document has been subject to some controversy. South Korean political parties are not well referred to as ideologies in Korea. If they have to quote only sources with "specific ideologies" mechanically, they should not write down ideologies in the "People Party" document, and only progressivism in the "Minjung Party" document. For now, what is certain is that DPK tends to be close to social conservatism, which does not conform to social and cultural liberalism. Although Korean media articles do not specify the party as "social conservatism," they sometimes refer to it as "conservative" in some issues. If only social liberalism is written down in the infobox, readers who do not read the text in detail are likely to understand DPK, which has a traditionalist tendency, as a general social liberal party.--삭은사과 (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it "social conservatism," but I've added a press article that calls DPK "conservative." Korean media rarely use the term 'social conservatism' in the first place. However, it is somewhat of a contentious issue when it comes to whether they tend to be conservative outside of social issues.--삭은사과 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Choo Mi-ae presidential candidate portrait.png
 * Park Young-sun mayoral candidate portrait.jpg

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Song Young-gil official portrait (21st National Assembly).jpg

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lee Hae-chan prime ministerial portriat (cropped).jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lee Hae-chan prime ministerial portriat (cropped).jpg

Idelogy of DPK
The article you attached contained the arguments of only two members of the Democratic Party, but as I mentioned, some social conservative factions within the Democratic Party were also described in the pre-editing document.

You also claimed that the Democratic Party of Korea is a liberal conservative party, but the view that the Democratic Party is a conservative party is a banal repertoire of the South Korean leftists, so I recommend that you withdraw this claim. Denying that South Korea is a two-party system of liberal and conservative parties is pseudo-science.

You also deleted the Democratic Party's Left-wing nationalism faction, so I ask you to provide a rationale for this.--211.202.127.36 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Even in Korean papers, it is mentioned that Korea is a conservative two-party system. However, in Korean politics, the Democratic Party of Korea plays a relatively progressive role, but this is an English Wikipedia, so I don't know why it has to follow Korean standards.
 * Papers on the Korean Papers Site
 * https://sspace.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/90222/1/4%20%eb%af%bc%ec%a3%bc%ed%99%94%20%ec%9d%b4%ed%9b%84%20%ec%a0%95%eb%8b%b9%ec%a0%95%ec%b9%98%20%ec%a0%95%eb%8b%b9,%20%ec%9c%a0%ea%b6%8c%ec%9e%90%20%ea%b7%b8%eb%a6%ac%ea%b3%a0%20%ec%a0%95%eb%b6%80-%ed%98%84%ec%9e%ac%ed%98%b8%20(%20Jae%20Ho%20Hyun%20).PDF Lazt9312 (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party of Korea has participated in the Progressive Alliance, an international progressive party organization that also includes the SDP and the US Democratic Party, and various English-speaking media also described the Democratic Party as a liberal party and former President Moon Jae-in as a liberal leader. The claim that South Korea is a conservative two-party system is an argument that only comes from within South Korea, and is just a framing that liberals use to portray the opposition as far-right, so there is no reason to accept such an argument on Wikipedia. 211.202.127.36 (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party of Korea is not currently a member of the Progressive Alliance. Korea's liberalism has a different meaning from the "liberalism" referred to in the United States, and is similar to conservative liberalism.
 * Also, regarding the political spectrum, there are articles that view the Democratic Party as moderately progressive, moderate, and moderately conservative, so it should be written in the middle.
 * In addition, the Social Liberal Party of developed countries does not always show a social conservative attitude such as opposing homosexuality. Therefore, it is suggested to write as simple liberalism and write social conservatism, social liberalism, left-wing populism, and liberal conservatism as internal factions. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, since you are constantly repeating biased arguments, it seems better to draw conclusions according to Wikipedia's rules rather than a political argument.
 * No original research, Neutral point of view, Reliable sources
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
 * Some of the liberal media that you have presented as sources have interests in South Korean politics. Therefore, they are not appropriate as evidence because they are a kind of primary source. Your claim that South Korea is a conservative two-party system is a extremely biased opinion and is not accepted by the English-speaking media, which is a secondary source of data.
 * Time said : Center-left candidate Moon Jae-in was elected by a landslide on Tuesday to replace ousted President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in December on charges of bribery and abuse of power. (https://time.com/4771881/moon-jae-in-president-election-south-korea/)
 * NYT said : South Korea’s leading liberal candidate, Lee Jae-myung, started his presidential bid with a speech that spoke squarely to the country’s simmering angst and its struggling middle class. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/world/asia/lee-jae-myung-south-korea.html)
 * There is no dispute that the English-speaking media classifies the DPK as a centre-left liberal party.
 * And you keep insisting that Social Liberalism should be classified as a faction, but the Democratic Party of Korea is socially progressive enough that its leadership has recently publicly shown its desire to enact anti-discrimination laws. (https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/082/0001155006?sid=100)
 * And above all, social liberalism is an ideology that includes economic interventionism. There seems to be no question that this is the mainstream trend of the Democratic Party, which has been strongly pushing for an increase in the minimum wage and intervention in the real estate market.
 * And you argue that liberal conservatism should be included as a faction of the Democratic Party, but liberal conservatism incorporates the classical liberal view of minimal government intervention in the economy (McAnulla, Stuart (2006). British Politics: A Critical Introduction. A&C Black. ISBN 978-0-826-46155-1.), there is no current trend that advocates economic liberalism in the Democratic Party, so that argument is also unacceptable. 210.221.255.173 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't have any other comments, I will revert. 211.202.127.36 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even candidate Lee Jae-myung, who is classified as the most progressive in the party, argued for easing market regulations and cutting taxes. This is more conservative than the policy of the German CDU. The above two media outlets are trusted media companies in Korea.
 * https://m.mt.co.kr/renew/view.html?no=2021111016055444387&type=outlink&ref=https%3A%2F%2
 * https://m.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/politics_general/1025287.html#cb Lazt9312 (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, other media in South Korea classified the Democratic Party as a Liberal Conservative Party.
 * https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/2021082222314899642
 * Therefore, we propose to classify as follows. Based on liberalism, as factions, social liberalism, liberal conservatism, left-wing populism, and social conservatism are created. (I do not object to writing a progressive writing request to be added) Lazt9312 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the argument that South Korea is a conservative two-party system by citing biased media over and over again.
 * But anyway, we have to see the agreement, so I'd rather compress it as much as possible.
 * I think it would be better to describe the mainstream as 'South Korean liberalism', leave it to the reader's interpretation, and add social conservative and populist tendencies to the faction. Do you agree?
 * Majority:
 * Liberalism (South Korea)
 * Factions:
 * Social conservative
 * Left-wing populism 210.221.255.159 (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That opinion seems to be quite good, but I think this is better. Left-wing populism does not show well that a new progressive force exists within the Democratic Party of Korea. Therefore, writing social liberalism can better express that the Democratic Party has a progressive side. So, it would be better to express it like this:
 * Majority:
 * Liberalism
 * Factions:
 * Social conservative
 * Social liberalism
 * Liberal conservatism
 * Economic liberalism Lazt9312 (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't want to come to an agreement, but rather stick to your opinion. Liberal conservatism is a concept that includes economic liberalism, and I said that it absolutely does not apply to the Democratic Party of Korea.
 * And in respect of your opinion on the distinction between liberalism and social liberalism, I suggested that the main ideology be integrated into South Korean liberalism, but you do not take this into consideration at all.
 * Besides, now that you are claiming to remove even left-wing populism without any basis, I can't help but question deeply whether you are willing to reach an agreement. 210.221.255.159 (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if you insist on the existence of an economically liberal faction in the Democrats, everyone will snort. Please make a commonsense argument. Don't force your worldview on Wikipedia. 210.221.255.159 (talk) 09:12, 6 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) 09:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is because there is a media article that evaluated the Democratic Party as a Liberal Conservative Party above. When making a claim, it is recommended that you make a claim with evidence. Lazt9312 (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't read anything I said, did you?
 * First of all, since you are constantly repeating biased arguments, it seems better to draw conclusions according to Wikipedia's rules rather than a political argument.
 * No original research, Neutral point of view, Reliable sources
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
 * Some of the liberal media that you have presented as sources have interests in South Korean politics. Therefore, they are not appropriate as evidence because they are a kind of primary source. Your claim that South Korea is a conservative two-party system is a extremely biased opinion and is not accepted by the English-speaking media, which is a secondary source of data.
 * Time said : Center-left candidate Moon Jae-in was elected by a landslide on Tuesday to replace ousted President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in December on charges of bribery and abuse of power. (https://time.com/4771881/moon-jae-in-president-election-south-korea/)
 * NYT said : South Korea’s leading liberal candidate, Lee Jae-myung, started his presidential bid with a speech that spoke squarely to the country’s simmering angst and its struggling middle class. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/world/asia/lee-jae-myung-south-korea.html)
 * There is no dispute that the English-speaking media classifies the DPK as a centre-left liberal party. 210.221.255.159 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with your logic is that "liberal conservatism" opposes the obvious mention of it in the article, while "left populism" continues to argue that there is no word left populism in the article. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As the panelist said, there are data that view the Democratic Party as a center-left party. However, there are also data that are viewed as moderate and moderately right, so it is a moderate deficit. It is also mentioned as a conservative two-party system on the Korean thesis site, and it is mentioned in various media as a liberal conservative party.
 * Center-Right Ratings:
 * https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/23048528#home
 * http://www.newsfreezone.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=106301 Lazt9312 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very surprising that you come with the remarks of Lee Hae-chan and Kim Eo-jun as source. Please read the rules below carefully and participate in the discussion again.
 * Reliable source examples 211.114.22.80 (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or do you agree that I would describe the Democratic Party as a 'far-left party' based on the sources below?
 * https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/70683
 * https://www.mbn.co.kr/news/politics/4701862
 * Political position: far-left
 * Ideology: Communism
 * How would you like to submit a settlement agreement like this? 211.114.22.80 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TBS failed to provide a source as far-left. Don't just insist on yourself, but answer the other person's question first. Also, this is a thesis that evaluated the Democratic Party as a "conservative" two-party system, and there is a media that evaluated it as "Liberal Conservative Party", so it is evidence that it is a moderate conservative. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You must answer my question. Aren't you just blurring the point without giving a straight-forward answer to the point I pointed out?
 * And the article you provided as evidence is the self-declaration of Lee Hae-chan and Kim Eo-jun. Self declaration cannot be an evidence. 210.221.255.174 (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you continue to be uncooperative in the debate, I will maintain the position that the Democratic Party should be marked as a communist party because there are articles that describe the Democratic Party as an extreme left and a communist party. 210.221.255.174 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And you are paranoidally obsessed with claiming that the Democratic Party is not a social liberal party, but there are so many articles that classify the Democratic Party as a social liberal party, there seems to be no reason to classify it as a faction.
 * 61.40.44.164 (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of the four articles presented as evidence, two of them expressed simple "liberalism", and one of them expressed social liberalism. I don't have many sources because I mentioned more "socially free."
 * Left populism continues to argue that there is no term left populism in the article, and liberal conservatism has the term libertarianism in the article, but I would like to ask why you continue to oppose it,
 * I will ask the third question
 * Please provide evidence that TBS is far-left broadcasting. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TBS wasn't even mentioned in the DPK discussion. It was only an issue because you cited TBS performers as the basis for your argument that the PPP was a far-right party. If you want to talk about TBS, go to the PPP discussion and, in my opinion, you're blurring the point because you're not confident enough to refute my opinion. Repeating questions that are off-topic can be sanctioned.
 * And you're pretending you didn't see it, even though I highlighted all of the points in all four articles that the Democratic Party referred to as social liberal. I think this is a very bad discussion attitude. Read the article straight away and say it again.
 * And there is a part in the article that talks about Lee Jae-myung as populist, but you ignore this and keep distorting reality. However, left-wing populism cannot be said to be the mainstream of the Democratic Party, so I am suggesting that left-wing populism be treated as a faction. 1.224.155.126 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because there is the term "populist" inside, I think it's an over-expanded interpretation to interpret it as left-wing populism. Regarding the translation of the Social Liberal Party, I used a translator, so I didn't know it well. It's my fault. I will be more careful in the future. However, what do you think about the article that evaluated the dpk as the Liberal Conservative Party and the Korean paper that evaluated the Korean party system as a "conservative two-party system"?
 * (However, it would be good for the panelist to know that what the panelist thinks as “Korean leftists” is evaluated as a moderate center-leftist in the international context.) Lazt9312 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You could say that this press is biased, but I did find another article describing dpk as centre-right anyway.
 * https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/2021042812134197683
 * (This press doesn't seem to be as extreme as it is a news agency that has re-established a relationship with the Korean search site naver.) Lazt9312 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection by tomorrow, I will edit the content below.
 * political spectrum
 * Majority:
 * Big Tent, Centrism
 * Factions:
 * center left to center right
 * ideology
 * Majority:
 * liberalism
 * Factions:
 * Social liberalism, liberal conservatism, economic liberalism, social conservatism Lazt9312 (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to come to an agreement by saying we have to come to an agreement. The agreement is what I have argued in the past. Lazt9312 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed "Faction" on the ideology section. The infobox includes too much information. We don't need that much information on the infobox.Jeff6045 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"left-leaning" is NOT "left-wing"
The DPK is not a social democratic party, and several reliable sources refer to the party as "centre". Lee Jae-myung, who was elected as the current leader, has clashed with LGBT human rights groups over anti-discrimination laws and is not a particularly social progressive 2001:2D8:922:613B:651B:E237:1E93:1555 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor who changes his political position is certainly Korean, and he must know that Lee Jae-myung has been controversial for social conservative views. Basic income or policy toward Japan is the not only yardstick that divides the left from the right.--2001:2D8:922:613B:651B:E237:1E93:1555 (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)2001:2D8:922:613B:651B:E237:1E93:1555 (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'd rather keep "social liberalism" in the ideological column of infobox and remove "liberalism," "progressivism" or "left-wing nationalism." Also, let's not reveal our political position--2001:2D8:922:613B:651B:E237:1E93:1555 (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, the DPK is one of the three major political parties in South Korea, right-wing "Conservative"(보수정당), centre-left "Democratic faction"(민주당계 정당), and the left-wing "Progressive"(진보 정당) party. DPK is 민주당계 정당, NOT 진보 정당.--2001:2D8:922:613B:651B:E237:1E93:1555 (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As long as the Republic of Korea is practically a two-party system of PPP and DPK, I think it is desirable to remove the political position as in the case of the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. DPK is much more socially conservative than the Democratic Party of the United States, and it is meaningless to discuss the political position of the Big Tent party in the first place. Likewise, this should apply to the political position of PPP articles.--2001:2D8:922:613B:651B:E237:1E93:1555 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to write it like this
 * Majority:
 * liberalism
 * Factions:
 * Social liberalism, liberal conservatism, economic liberalism, social conservatism
 * 내부 계파: 사회자유주의   사회보수주의    경제적 자유주의
 * In Korean Wikipedia, it is written similarly to the above. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many sources mention dpk centrists.  The Democratic Party of Korea is described as a centrist party by numerous sources:• ::

• ::

• ::

• ::

• ::

• ::

• :: Lazt9312 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party of Korea is described as a centrist party by numerous sources:• :::

• :::

• :::

• :::

• :::

• :::

• ::: Lazt9312 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * position = Centre The Democratic Party of Korea is described as a centrist party by numerous sources:• ::::

• ::::

• ::::

• ::::

• ::::

• ::::

• :::: to centre-left Lazt9312 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are more sources that refer to the party as centrist than the centre-left. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

centrist-liberal
@Mureungdowon Coming here per WP:BRD. Both of those labels are supported by sources and are mentioned in the article. Why does it make sense that one label is in the lede, while the other one is buried in the article? Also you reverted various copyedits made by me, please self revert those changes. : 3 F4U (they/it) 18:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk with Ideology
Dpk is not Social liberalism

Social liberalism is minor edit

Talk about this Lazt9312 (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * DPK is referred to as a social liberal party in numerous credible sources. Some editors see it as a progressive. Don't start any more editorial wars.2001:2D8:6C33:B927:459:4DCB:E3FC:43CC (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not against writing "progressive" in dpk. However, "economic liberalism" should be marked. dpk expresses a free market economy in its party program.
 * The mainstream of dpk has never been "social libertarian". dpk is more socio-culturally conservative than CDU. (We do not send booths to legalization of same-sex marriage or queer festivals) Lazt9312 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are also several reliable sources that rate Korea as a conservative two-party system.
 * On this basis, I do not agree with the claim of the Democrats as "conservative".
 * ( https://imnews.imbc.com/newszoomin/newsinsight/6351640_29123.html ) Lazt9312 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Social liberalism must be inserted as an internal sect. It should also be stated in the ideology statement that dpk is more socio-culturally conservative than cdu. Article Source: https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2022071803560004078 Lazt9312 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection, I agree to amend the following
 * Mainstream: Liberalism
 * Internal factions:
 * social liberalism
 * social conservatism
 * economic liberalism
 * liberal conservatism
 * centrist reformism
 * centrist
 * progressive Lazt9312 (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not participate in the discussion and do not speak out against it, I will add Economic Liberalism to the inside sect and downgrade Social Liberalism to the sect. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, there was no objection after I said that I would add economic liberalism, so there is no problem writing it. However, I think consensus through discussion is important. Can you tell me why you are against economic liberalism? Lazt9312 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't know why adding economic liberalism is a problem. DPK supports a market economy and conservatives are very economically liberal. The moderate group of the Social Democratic Party of Germany Seeheimer Kreis, the moderate group of the US Democratic Party New Democrat Coalition, etc., are all marked with economic liberalism. I think it is difficult to see DPK as more active in economic intervention than they are. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can also provide a source describing some politicians in the DPK as social democracy. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the reason for not listing Social Democracy is similar to not listing Christian Democracy/or/ Christian Right, Fiscal Conservatism, etc. Members such as Park Yong-jin seem to be close to the social democratic line, but I would appreciate it if you could provide a rationale. (In fact, Kim Jin-pyo's actions could be enough for the Christian right wing by international standards.)
 * liquor representative liberalism, centrist reformism
 * representative of the progressive Social liberalism, liberalism, populism
 * conservative representative
 * social conservatism, economic liberalism
 * There has to be some degree of balance. Lazt9312 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposition. The current infobox is reasonable. I support the status quo. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's hard to understand that there is a source, but I won't write it down. In fact, since you did not present an objection, at least there is no problem, but I will wait to hear the objection. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then, it would be good to either remove all but liberalism, social liberalism, social conservatism, and centrist reformism, which have really solid sources, or add economic liberalism to the current state. Lazt9312 (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, some sources describe DPK itself as "progressive". Mureungdowon (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So what about adding progressives and writing without sects?
 * liberalism
 * social liberalism
 * centrist reformism
 * social conservatism
 * economic liberalism
 * Progressivism Lazt9312 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Any other comments? Lazt9312 (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to any attempt to change the narrative of ideology written in infobox, no matter what suggestion you make. Infobox's ideologies should be maintained as follows: "Liberalism / Social liberalism / Factions: (/Centrist reformism) / Populism / Conservatism / Progressivism". Your suggestion hurts the readability of infobox too much, and there is no better way than to maintain the status quo. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Economic Liberalism must be written because the sources exist. If there is no reason not to write it down, you should. And since the current Progressive sources do not specify DPK as Progressive, but as Liberal, a replacement is needed. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a read of the article, I feel that the Infobox should contain only "Liberalism" (or "Liberalism (South Korean)" if other editors feel that is preferable) in the Ideology field, perhaps at a stretch with "social liberalism" as well. The various factions currently listed in the Infobox should be instead left to the "Factions" subsection, with perhaps a broad overview in the lede (e.g. "the DPK also contains XYZ factions...").--Autospark (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Social liberalism should not be eliminated in infobox. All DPK politicians, except conservative faction, support the "Korean version of the New Deal" (한국판 뉴딜). Although the DPK is weaker in cultural liberalism than Germany's FDP, the Friedrich Nauman Foundation also sees DPK as a left-liberal party. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of ​​simply writing 'Liberalism' (including writing Liberalism (Korea)). Social liberalism is described in many sources, but neither is social conservatism or economic liberalism. The 'Korean New Deal' is a much more moderate form than the New Deal policy. Currently, Lee Jae-myeong has diluted a lot of the progressive tendencies of 2017. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No English source describes DPK as an economic liberal. DPK is referred to as a social liberal in many English media. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you strictly select the sources mentioned in the English-speaking media, only social liberalism, social conservatism, and liberalism remain. How about just writing these down? Lazt9312 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Social conservatism is a source of Moon Jae In, not DPK. No source refers to the DPK itself, not a particular politician, as a social conservative. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the presidential candidate contains some socially conservative views can be used as a basis for enemies of social conservatism. (Lee Jae-myung and Moon Jae-in and Kim Jin-pyo are all key figures in DPK.)
 * And I don't see why English-speaking material should be prioritized. Current sources are mostly institutional media. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTH. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it is an independent study to interpret 'socially conservative views' as social conservatism in the article.
 * Economic liberalism is mentioned in many sources, so should I write it?
 * Or it would be better to delete all of them, not liberalism. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Socially conservative views" are just a description from one source in the socialist left-leaning media of Moon Jae In's LGBT-related position, not a source for the DPK party as a whole. And DPK is never an economic liberal. Because the party is overwhelmingly described as a social liberal. (See WP:DUE) Mureungdowon (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, as I said above, the moderate Seeheimer Kreis faction of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which is far more economically interventionist than the Democratic Party, writes about economic liberalism. Lazt9312 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Source? See WP:SYNTH. Mureungdowon (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have read what you sent above. However, I believe that many members of DPK are arguing for the values ​​that economic liberalism includes. To give some grounds, advocating a market economy while advocating some degree of government intervention to prevent market failures is also considered economic liberalism. Economic liberalism also seeks deregulation, tax cuts, etc., which satisfies almost all of the examples given in the sources above. Lazt9312 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, if the source is strictly selected, "DPK is a political party showing liberalism/social liberalism/center reformism" is limited to three. In fact, the reason why I have been opposed to writing social liberalism as the mainstream is that social liberalism is based on cultural liberalism, but DPK lacks cultural liberal tendencies compared to the center-right parties in Western Europe. So, it would be better to write Liberalism (Korea) *Social Liberalism (Controversy) centrist reformism
 * Sources above. Lazt9312 (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTH... Mureungdowon (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Referenced. In the case of the Liberty Korea Party, I know that it is described as such because there is a source that satisfies social conservatism or national conservatism. However, I am curious about the criteria for distinguishing social liberalism as mainstream and centrist reformism as sect. If the distinction is not clear, it seems reasonable to write it without sect. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Some sources view DPK as a centrist-reformist, while others view DPK as a progressives. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that there is a source that mentions progressivism. But I wonder why centrist reformism is a faction and social liberalism is the mainstream. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Some sources view DPK as a progressivism, and others as a centrist-reformism. Social liberalism is in the middle. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Has your party ever been covered by the foreign press as the "Progressive Democratic Party"? In the Korean media, I have seen cases where DPK and PPP are treated as a confrontation between progressives and conservatives, but I have never seen a case in which the party itself is viewed as progressive. (However, there is a case of expressing Lee Jae-myung as a progressive candidate.) Lazt9312 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See Reuters, Forbes, Nikkei Asia Mureungdowon (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be good to replace the source with the latest one. By the way, it would be good to emphasize some of the reasons for supporting "conservatism" instead of "social conservatism" and the lack of social liberalism in the cultural part through *social liberalism (controversy). Lazt9312 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fully explained by the footnote. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, not writing liberalism/social liberalism/centrist reformism in the DPK mainstream without writing progressiveism is a similar situation to not writing progressiveism in the Kyunghyang Shinmun. (The Kyunghyang Shinmun is referred to as progressive media in Korea) Lazt9312 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, South Korea tends to interpret liberal as "progressive." I don't think there is a need to greatly reflect the structure in which DPK is recognized as progress in Korea in the English Wikipedia. DPK is not culturally "social" liberal at all. Lazt9312 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk with Factions
. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is where the clear description of "conservatives" comes in. Content based on source. I agree that it's different from the US Democrats. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be better not to change the ideology of the infobox if possible. Mureungdowon (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why you want to delete a description written by a trusted source. in the Democrats
 * progressive
 * liberal
 * Moderate
 * conservatives
 * faction have Lazt9312 (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection, I will amend it to the original state Lazt9312 (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objections? Lazt9312 (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, very few of the DPK's main politicians are as culturally liberal as the social liberals in the United States and Britain. However, the DPK does not have much of a fiscal conservatism character. The factions must remain the status quo. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason why I am against changing "Social conservatism" to "Conservatism" in infobox is that the term "liberal" (자유/자유주의) is never entirely used in the American way in Korean society. The DPK's main ideology does not only say "Social liberalism," but also "Liberalism". Of course, "Liberalism" includes Social liberalism and Economic liberalism(or Fiscal liberalism) elements. Plus, There are also conservative politicians in the DPK, both fiscally and socially, but they do not support anti-communist foreign policy such as the PPP. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that the Democratic Party of Korea is taking a nationalist policy. Then, instead of adding nationalism to the main ideology, how about inserting "National Liberalism" into the sub-ideology and adding an explanation through footnotes?
 * Also, my editing is based on articles from major Korean media and interviews with university professors, so it should be written down. Lazt9312 (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, my editing is based on articles from major Korean media and interviews with university professors, so it should be written down. Lazt9312 (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)