User talk:YellowJelly

September 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Left–right politics. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 19:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first, your recent addition appears to be word-for-word from a copyrighted source, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:COPYVIO). Second, please read WP:BRD. Your changes have been disputed, so it's on you to justify them on the article talk page and seek consensus for the changes instead of reverting to your preferred version. clpo13_(talk) 21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed the wording of the article to avoid the copyright. Replaced civil rights by racial equality as given by the source. There shouldn't be a disagreement now as all the points given by the other user have been met. YellowJelly (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saenuri Party[edit]

Neoliberalism is not an ideology.
We can't declare the party as a neoliberal. It has maintained big government policy, interest rate deduction, and government intervention on their economics as opposed to Laissez-faire. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Grand National-Saenuri Party have maintained interventionist economic policy, but Laissez-faire; and
Wikipedia doesn't declare any political party as a neoliberal, even any political parties that maintain economically liberal or fiscally conservative policies. (e.g. Republican Party (United States), Conservative Party (UK), People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) --117.53.77.84 (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going by what the sources say. If you believe they are interventionist you should cite a source that claims that. And Wikipedia does claim some political parties as neoliberal (which is not the same as being economically liberal or fiscally conservative by the way). This party, Independent Democratic Union, for example. And I'm pretty sure I have seen a few more in the past. YellowJelly (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Party supported Mobile Device Distribution Improvement Act, which regulates the price of South Korean Mobile devices (especially smartphones) and illegalise Discriminative Subsidy Payment. (even the law made by a Saenuri MP.)
Park Geun-hye government have maintained the Interest rate have reduction and progressive fiscal policy. (If you could understand Korean, see this.) --117.53.77.84 (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the treatise that you have been cited does not say why the party is a neoliberal and about the definition of neoliberalism, but just declare Saenuri is a party that stands on which political stance so I doubt that the paper's reliability to define its political ideology. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The party having some non-neoliberal policies doesn't mean it's not a primarily neoliberal party, just as we could find examples from a lot of political parties with policies that contradict their own ideologies. Those are exceptions rather than the rules. The paper I cited even admits that while the party is mostly a neoliberal one, it does include some non-neoliberal policies (such as the ones implemented by Park Geunhye). This should answer your points 1 and 2. The paper also mentions numerous times what neoliberal policies are such as tax reductions, opposition to the welfare state, small government, employment flexibility, increasing economic competition, among others. Because of this, the paper does mention what neoliberalism is and considers the Saenuri Party to be one. It's a reliable paper and should therefore be an acceptable addition to Wikipedia. YellowJelly (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, some sociologists and political scientists describe New Labour and New Democrats are neoliberal because of their small government, balanced budget, tax reductions, employment flexibility and increasing economic competition policies but it doesn't mean Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are politicians who endorse such position. It's as same as Saenuri's situation. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Kim Dae-jung government and Roh Moo-hyun government maintained tax cuts and employment flexibility policies so should Wikipedia describe the Democratic Party of Korea as neoliberal? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If those two parties are neoliberal parties then it should be mentioned on their respective infoboxes. Of course I would disagree with that. Also, you left out the part about those two parties being opposed to concepts such as the welfare state like neoliberal parties would. Even then, what you are doing now is Original Research, and we should abide with what the sources say. The same logic you are applying could be used to call any marxist-leninst party as fascist because both are authoritarian. That would obviously be wrong, just like the logic you are applying to this case. The same argument applies to the Democratic Party of Korea. YellowJelly (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]