Talk:Democratic Party (South Korea, 2015)

Infobox: Ideology

I think we should change the current DPK ideology like this:

• Liberalism (South Korea)
• Social conservatism
• Economic progressivism or Fiscal progressivism
• Footnotes "a" : DPK is often referred to as "social liberal" in the media, but this position is mainly limited to the economic position, and other (mainly cultural) socialiy positions show conservative tendencies.

DPK has never taken a largely liberal view on social issues since the 2010s, and has repeatedly retreated and reactionay. However, as you can see from the current name Lee Jae-myung, it is true that he has continued to left-click economically. DPK is clearly right-wing in European, Canadian, and U.S. standards on social issues, and is not considered at least 'liberal' (リベラル) in Japan.

Although cultural liberalism and social liberalism are different, social liberalism certainly includes agendas such as LGBT rights and human rights for the disabled. (At least in Europe and North America, it's used in this sense.) DPK has never taken this position on social issues. But they have never officially put forward socialism or social democracy, and I suggest writing down the ideology like this because it cannot be regarded as South Korean political reward.--Storm598 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE :3 F4U (they/it) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Lee Jae-myung, who has now been confirmed as a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, is a progressive in terms of economic issues. However, he is neither progressive nor liberal in social issues. Rather, he has often been compared to Donald Trump in blunt terms, and there have been controversies over misogyny and disparaging the disabled.--Storm598 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE :3 F4U (they/it) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

And there is a lot of data to enter that almost all politicians in the Democratic Party are social conservatives. It is difficult to find cultural liberals within the Democratic Party.--Storm598 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE :3 F4U (they/it) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Around two years ago, Jeff6045 wrote social conservatism as "factions" in the DPK article's infobox because DPK is economically "social liberal". DPK is a very culturally powerful conservative. (The hostile tendency toward human rights for the disabled or LGBT human rights issues is also described in 'Democratic Party of Korea' article.) Multiculturalism is also not a liberal position compared to conservatives in South Korea. It can be seen that he was the first member of the National Assembly to be elected from a conservative party in South Korea to become a Jasmine Bacurnay Lee.--Storm598 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE :3 F4U (they/it) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Come to think of it, it might be better to edit it like this.

• Liberalism (South Korea) (Footnote : DPK is often referred to as "social liberal" in the media, but this position is mainly limited to the economic position, and other (mainly cultural) socialiy positions show conservative tendencies.)

What is certain is that DPK defines itself as not a progressive party, and even defines themselves as conservative or centre-right. Also, they have never taken liberal views on social issues. DPK is social liberalism only in terms of economy.--Storm598 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition, DPK supported labor flexibility policies and some privatization policies. #--Storm598 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE :3 F4U (they/it) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody wants to read stuff that's been crossed out, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.123.117 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Ideology

I suggest changing the ideology as follows: Liberalism (South Korea), Social liberalism, Factions: Populism, Centrist reformism

Conservatism and progressivism within the DPK are relatively meaningful, and they are very non-mainstream and need not be written. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I am opposed to the proposal to remove 'factions'. Because the DPK describes their identity as "centrist reformist" (중도개혁주의), and the current DPK's mainstream pro-Lee people are clearly "populist"s. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't really object to the current description, but I think the addition of social conservatism to the faction is necessary. I think it should be written because social conservatism, unlike conservatism, contains the meaning of conservatism limited to the "social" field.

Stated as it is, the Democratic Party could be presented as culturally liberal, like the European Liberal Party (or Social Liberal Party).

In fact, the fact that the Democratic Party's cultural liberal tendency is more conservative than Germany's center-right CDU has come from little reading by various media and experts. I'm trying to express it in the way that it is limited to the social part through footnotes, but I hope you can help me with that. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that a footnote next to the phrase Social liberalism is enough. I don't think Lee Jae-myung is a social conservative (at least unlike Moon Jae-in) by South Korean standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of what you said above is hard to see Lee Jae-myung as social conservatism (by Korean standards), and the current Lee Jae-myeong leadership is relatively progressive. But the reason I said social conservatism was red

It's because there are people who make pretty tough social conservative statements like Kim Jin-pyo .

(For example, to treat homosexuality in order to solve the low birth rate, etc.

https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/politics_general/1068955.html )

As mentioned in the article, they wield a lot of influence among members of Congress. (Kim Jin-pyo won the support of the majority of DPK members of the National Assembly and won both the pro-Moon Jae-in faction and the pro-Lee Jae-myung faction.)

As can be seen in the case of West Virginia Democratic Party, it would not be bad to write some conservative positions in the party including the conservative position or faction.

(Even the WV Democrats, I think, are more culturally liberal than the DPK.) Lazt9312 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Opposition. American politics and South Korean politics are different. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If you oppose it, it would be better to keep the original ideology as it is. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Limited to one of the three points.

[A] maintaining the status quo [B] liberalism, social liberalism, centrist reformism, social Conservatism, populist narrative [C] liberalism social liberalism

centrist reformism

Statement (State that you have a social conservatist position in a footnote) From populist sources "Lee's core pledge of a universal basic income has also been labeled populist." However, the DPK itself is not being treated as a populist party. if that means Social conservatism should also be reduced according to the sources that DPK personnel are taking a social conservative stance. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

DPK has never defined itself as a social conservative. I think the current version is better Mureungdowon (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You are right in saying that the Democratic Party has never called itself a social conservative. But he never called himself a populist.

The reason why social conservatism is written off is because, as mentioned above, there are many figures described in the mainstream media as representing a "conservative Christian" position.

https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/politics_general/1068955.html

Chairman Kim Jin-pyo, a devout Christian, is evaluated as having represented the position of conservative Protestants in the political world, such as opposing the anti-discrimination law.

https://jacobin.com/2017/05/south-korea-elections-moon-jae-in-park-chaebols-north-korea

At the same time, however, he belongs to the Catholic Church and holds some socially conservative views. When asked during a debate about the military’s persecution of gay soldiers, Moon responded that he opposed homosexuality in general.

I am not very opposed to the current narrative, but it is highly likely that the Democratic Party will be recognized as a cultural liberal party in the style of the US Democratic Party when the current narrative is maintained. If there is nothing you want among a, b, and c, let's keep the original writing. Lazt9312 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Populist Transition -> Populism

If interpreted as

Socially conservative view -> social conservatism

Representing the position of Christian conservatives -> Christian democracy/Christian right wing

(Kim Jin-pyo is really a right-wing politician by the standards of industrialized developed countries (mainly oecd countries).)

Shouldn't that also be added?

In fact, that's why we think it would be better to choose one of the above or keep the original description. Lazt9312 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There are many social liberal parties in the world that have a more socially conservative line than the DPK. There are social liberal parties such as Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Since there is a footnote next to the link Social liberalism in the infoobox of the DPK article, no one sees DPK as having the same cultural liberal tendencies as the U.S. Democratic Party. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

i said above

If the populist transition is interpreted as populism, I would like you to respond to the opinion that social conservatism can be interpreted as social conservatism.

Liberalism, social liberalism, and centrist reformism describe the party itself as such a party. There is no description of the party itself as populist or social conservatism.

In fact, if you continue to oppose it, it seems the best way to just keep the original description.

I know the case of overseas political parties, and it was a great help to understand the situation. However, I think that social conservatism should be written down even if it is a sect like Labor Right. (In fact, most of the social conservatism is in this position in developed countries.) Lazt9312 (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In that sense, social democracy should also be added to the Actions. In fact, there are very occasional sources that refer to it. But I don't think the DPK is a social democrat at all. "Social conservatism" should not be mentioned in infobox, nor should it be "Progressivism" or "Social democracy". Mureungdowon (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I knew there was a basis for Progressivism, but I had never heard of Social Democracy. I would appreciate it if you could provide a rationale.

If the range of evidence is 'very wide', the ideology that can be written is as follows.

liberalism

social liberalism

liberal conservatism

national liberalism

centrist reformism

Progressivism

social democracy

populism

social conservatism

economic liberalism

Christian Democracy

fiscal conservatism

If you have any thoughts about these ideologies, please comment. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think bloat comes into mind with this. There shouldn't be too many ideologies, and with that I think only ideologies that make up most of the party should be shown. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So what do you think of the idea of ​​simply writing liberalism? Lazt9312 (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Social liberalism must be included in infobox. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I am against further changes in infobox. Actions should also be applied on a current basis. It is "Liberalism / Social liberalism / Factions: / Populism / Centrist reformism". Mureungdowon (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A majority of party pages don't include factions. For example, the ODS in Czech used to list factions, but have since been removed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Then, in order to reflect the opinion of Mr. Mureungdo as much as possible, it seems that the social liberal aspect of DPK should be greatly mentioned through footnotes.

Liberalism (Korea) Since the description itself in this way includes the meaning of Korean liberalism, I think it will be able to express the big aspect of social liberalism well. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is no further objection, it would be better to write it in the sense of simple liberalism (Korea). It would be nice if Mureungdowon put the footnote first. Lazt9312 (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. The ideology of the DPK should be "Liberalism (South Korea) / Social liberalism", not just "Liberalism (South Korea)". Mureungdowon (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If you oppose all proposals, you have no choice but to maintain the status quo. Lazt9312 (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to insert social liberalism, you must also enter centrist reformism. The party is also described as a centrist reformist party. There is no basis for describing the party itself as a social conservative or populist party. Lazt9312 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

However, there are sources that say that the DPK itself is a progressive camp (진보 진영), or that say that the DPK's ideology is progressive [or progressivism]. Of course I don't think DPK is progressive or centrist-reformist party. I support the status quo as of today. DPK is "Liberalism / Social liberalism / Factions: / Populism / Centrist reformism". Mureungdowon (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Maintaining the status quo means maintaining the original state. The current description is not the existing description.

then

liberalism

social liberalism

centrist reformism

Progressivism

I also do not object to being described as . This is the most source-correct.

If you disagree with all opinions, keeping the existing description that has been maintained for more than a month seems the most likely. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Opposition. DPK is not progressive enough socially. Supporters of Lee Jae-myung are mainstream in the DPK, and they are often described as populists in the media Mureungdowon (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

But it includes left-wing social democrats/modern liberals like Park Ji-hyun and Park Yong-jin.

Then, you can add social conservatism to progressivism to express that you are conservative in terms of socio-cultural aspects. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Social conservatives or progressives is not the mainstream of DPK. The mainstream of the DPK is centrist reformists and pro-Lee Jae-myung supporters (=populists). Mureungdowon (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact, it would be difficult to see a person like Kim Jin-pyo as the Speaker of the National Assembly as a non-mainstream. If the Lee Jae-myung faction as a populist represents the Moon Jae-in faction as a centrist reformist, why did the conservative faction such as Kim Jin-pyo disappear? Lazt9312 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

However, I'm not terribly opposed to keeping the status quo right now, as I'm not terribly opposed to the current narrative. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, anything that makes up the majority of the party should be kept. Anything else isn't needed, as the other ideologies are in the rest of the article. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on adding social conservatism to the current narrative? Lazt9312 (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lazt9312: Are you messaging me, or Mu (just making sure)? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I was asking about "Valencia Thunderbolt"'s opinion. What are your thoughts on social conservatism? Lazt9312 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to inform you, Mu has been banned indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Storm, a user from a year ago. As for the ideology, I'm for it as most of the party of socially conservative. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you for telling me. (I didn't know,.) I want to ask "ValenciaThunderbolt" for his opinion, but in fact I support the sub-faction of social liberalism. What do you think of the idea of ​​adding just liberalism to the main faction, social liberalism to the bottom, and social conservatism? Lazt9312 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm only in favour of not including factions, as other party pages don't have them and I think they aren't encouraged either. I'm only in favour of their being "Liberalism (South Korean), Social liberalism, Social conservatism". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Then, you agreed in the past about simply writing liberalism, but do you still agree with that plan?

Like this:

Liberalism (Korea)

Regarding ideology, I wonder what you think about the simple "centrist" description instead of the current "centrist centre-left" description. Lazt9312 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ideologically, yes. Positioning, I'm more inclined towards what is used on the FDP page (a German liberal party). In this case, it's best to keep the current political positioning. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I know you've agreed to the simple middle ground in my papers in the past. Is there a reason you've changed your position? In fact, the political position brought the case of Renaissance (French political party). Lazt9312 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you make a good point. Compared to the FDP, this party has all shades of liberalism, so I'm in favour of just "centre". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to write "centrist". We will change only part of the ideology, so if you object to it, please feel free to leave a message, return it, or modify it. Thank you. Lazt9312 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Instead of simple liberalism liberalism social liberalism centrist reformism social conservatism But what do you think of the plan to write without internal factions? Lazt9312 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, it's okay as it is. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ValenciaThunderbolt; keep it as it is. Simple is best when it comes to Infoboxes. Internal factions of parties should be described in the article body.-- Autospark (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not opposed to centrist to centre-left narratives. Ideology just doesn't matter at least as it stands now.

By the way, what do you think about writing the center right in the internal faction? Lazt9312 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's okay as it is. Best to type that in the ideology section of the page, rather than the infobox. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not strongly advocating to change the position to centrism, but in fact, centrism is a better solution, as seen in the case of Renaissance (French political party) above.

RE is perceived by the French as centre-right, but is being written off as centrist because it is centrist by international standards.

DPK is also recognized as a center-left in Korea, but how about describing it according to international standards? Lazt9312 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's better to have "Centre to centre-left" as the largest factions are of those positions. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

We will agree to maintain the status quo as long as the current leadership is maintained. Thank you. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Social policies

DPK’s social policies are conservative. They are somewhat more conservative in social issues than right wings in the Europe, sometimes they almost looks like far rights in the Europe. The socially ‘progressive’ things mentioned in the article was done by one city council member or unofficially by extreme minority, so it dosen’t represent the entire party’s stance. The speaker of the house who is from DPK are literally calling for conversion therapy and total ban on abortion 211.227.40.129 (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Historically, the Democratic Party has been somewhat social conservative. However, after the Lee Jae-myung administration, the Democratic Party moved toward cultural liberalism.

https://www.ajunews.com/view/20211129180337005

iGood News is a right-wing biased Christian media outlet. Description through appropriate sources is required. It is already sufficiently mentioned in the article that DPK's social policies often take a more conservative stance than those of the European center-right camp. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to refer to the Hankyoreh article explaining what is considered 'progressive' in Korea.

https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/column/953528.html

In April 2020, ‘progressive’ became a word referring to the ruling Democratic Party of Korea. No one has any objection to calling the Democratic Party the ‘biggest progressive force.’

Whether you view the results of the last general election as an expansion or a transformation of the concept of ‘progress,’ it is clear that at least the majority of the people perceive our political landscape that way. Accepting progressive party policies such as ‘free school meals and welfare’ and even discussing basic income issues, which mainstream economists consider taboo, amid the coronavirus crisis, resulted in a strong coloring of ‘progressive’ to the Democratic Party. Lazt9312 (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s progressive in terms of ‘Korean’ style. In Korea what defines ‘progressive’ is its economic policies and foreign policies. Social issues don’t hold that much. Also all the social liberal things mentioned in this article is the thing done by one single city council member. It does not represent the entire party’s stance. When you look at Lee Jae Myung’s answer on Amnesty questions, he said he would consider anti-discrimination law but he can’t abolish military code 92-6 that criminalizes homosexual activities among soldiers, nor can he publicly support LGBTQ community while even the conservative opposition said he would consider about it. When asked about homosexuality, Lee Jae Myung literally said “I support heterosexuality. But there should be no discrimination.” This literally implies that he dosen’t support homosexuality. If you take a look at the news, it’s very easy to find DPK members attending church or protesting along with the pastors disagreeing anti-discrimination law. Literally you cannot find any social liberal DPK main officials who holds the control of the party. Social issue is not in the front line in the korean politics, but DPK really seems to be conservative when it comes to LGBT and abortion issue. Also it’s worth mentioning DPK opposing Afghan refugees while even conservative opposition agreed letting Afghan refugees in. https://www.sisajournal.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=223155 211.227.40.129 (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Supporting heterosexuality cannot be grounds for not supporting homosexuality. Lee Jae-myung's leadership is the most culturally liberal among all previous leaders. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope he isn’t. He literally agrees jailing homosexuals in the military. His stance on social issues is as conservative as that of president Moon 211.227.40.129 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion if you still want to portray DPK as social liberal 220.88.176.73 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I will insist on maintaining the status quo No source describes the Democratic Party's social policies as 'conservative'. In that sense, there are more sources that describe it as progress. ‘Inconsistent’ is the most neutral statement.

I will insist on maintaining the status quo, which is the existing narrative of ‘Inconsistent’. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, you have to get rid of the part where you wrote one single gay city council member represents the entire party’s stance. Also you mentioned Geum Tae Seop, while he has been kicked out from the party for a while. He does not represent DPK. Also you mentioned Park Jo Hyeon, however she has been eliminated from the party leadership for a while and she does not hold any power or influence on the party. Her political career is dead. She cannot represent DPK’s entire stance. Lee Jae Myung agreed making the ‘Day of respecting life’ as a national holiday. Do You understand what this means? 220.88.176.73 (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Keum Tae Seop is not DPK anymore 220.88.176.73 (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Living Partner Act promoted by the Democratic Party of Korea is facing criticism for de facto legalizing same-sex marriage.

https://www.donga.com/news/Politics/article/all/20230621/119877074/2 Lazt9312 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the sexual minority group within the party, I will provide a neutral description using only sources.

https://monthly.chosun.com/client/mdaily/daily_view.asp?idx=6993&Newsnumb=2019056993 Lazt9312 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

DP members are saying that Living Partner act dosen’t include same-sex couples. Also, monthly chosun is not a neutral description, as they oppose everything that DPK does 211.227.40.129 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Monthly Chosun has a critical tone of some of the Democratic Party's cultural liberal policies from a right-wing conservative perspective. It is true that Monthly Chosun is biased. However, the current text also includes opinions from several left-wing columnists. There is a need to balance different opinions.

For reference, according to reliability rankings, Chosun Ilbo articles have higher reliability than columns from Hankyoreh or Daily Labor News. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And I don’t know why you describe the Democratic Party as “quite conservative.” That source does not exist. There are many sources that say the party's social policy is unclear, but there are no sources that specifically describe the party's social policy as "quite conservative." The description must be based on the source. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.m-i.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=886628 Lee Jae Myung himself said he is conservative 221.148.129.142 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because the PPP calls itself a liberal doesn't make it a liberal party. Stop deleting statements with evidence immediately. Lazt9312 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Literally, Lee Jae Myung’s recent stance on anti discrimination law is negative. https://n.news.naver.com/article/469/0000639880?sid=100

DPK is not even mentioning social policies like homosexuality or abortion nowadays 211.227.40.129 (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

All statements I write are based on evidence. If you object, please add a statement of opposing opinion based on evidence. Due to regulations, the existing statement cannot be removed without agreement through discussion. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to mention extreme minority or kicked out member’s stance as entire party’s stance. 211.227.40.129 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Centrist reformism footnote

I'm not sure if this is a bad suggestion or not but I remember on an old version of this page saying that centrist reformism is akin to conservative liberalism and/or liberal conservatism in the rest of the world. I added this sentence to the centrist reformism page saying "In international standards, centrist reformism can be seen as conservative liberalism and/or liberal conservatism" (copied it from the old version of this page). But I can't remember if there was a source for this statement too but I think this page could benefit from a footnote in the infobox with a sentence like that (preferably sourced too of course) as centrist reformism is unheard-of and non-existent outside of South Korea, so it would be a very useful footnote. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Democratic Party of Korea → Democratic Party (South Korea, 2015) – The name of the party is "Democratic Party", and is mentioned as such on various newssites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this really a contested technical request? The permalink is broken, and the technical request at WP:RM/TR#23V seems uncontested. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa: No, but at least users will be aware of the page being up for discussion for it to be moved. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, Impru20, Vacant0, Siglæ, Rowei99, Μαρκος Δ, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, Erinthecute, HapHaxion, Helper201, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Morgan695, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: What's your opinion on the subject? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Braganza (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Tyrosian (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. No reason to oppose the rationale given. Impru20^talk 19:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially skeptical of the rationale, because it would only be natural to drop "of Korea" in an article about Korea — it's self-evident. But looking at the sources, they overwhelming use the shorthand "DP" rather than "DPK", which indicates the party really is just the "Democratic Party", no "of Korea". The BBC does use DPK, but a quick look on Google shows they are the outliers here, and most use "DP". — Kawnhr (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.