Talk:Bareunmirae Party

Party Name

The party's English name, Bareun Future Party, has been established by The Korea Herald, KBS World Radio, and Yonhap. Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), it has been established that "The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred." Therefore, under convention, the page's name should be Bareun Future Party. It is for that same reason why Uri Party is not named Yeollin Uridang on Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2018

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: not moved. Interesting discussion below – perhaps in a year or so when the situation isn't so "recent", circumstances may change enough to approach this subject again. Time will tell (and time also heals). Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Bareun Future Party → Bareunmirae Party –

• Soruces:
  • official name; see the name at the bottom of the link
  • Yonhap, since February 22, 2018.
  • TBS etc.

Thanks. --Garam (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: Request rename goes against established conventions for the naming of articles on Wikipedia, and is a rules violation. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Supplemental Comment: A search for "Bareun Future Party" on Google News turned up at least 400 hits from multiple domestic South Korean and foreign sources, including Yonhap. A search for "Bareunmirae Party" turned up only four hits. There is a consensus internationally, it appears, to use Bareun Future. Also, citing the official party website is, in and of itself, a Wikipedia rules violation, as it is clearly stated, in WP:NC, that 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. This issue has been debated ad nauseum, and I think we need to GOI by now. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kiteinthewind: Well, the name "Bareunmirae Party" is continue to increasing in English news. Please see Yonhap #1, Yonhap #2 and Korea Herald etc. And "Bareunmirae" and "Bareun Mirae" have the same meaning in Korean language. Also, all results in Google News is infinitesimal.

• "Bareun Future Party" -wikipedia: 63 results in Google News
• 10 results in Google News

• "Bareun Mirae Party" -wikipedia: 6 results in Google News
• "Bareunmirae Party" -wikipedia: 4 results in Google News

Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: Bareun Future Party seems to be the consensus English name among the Anglophone media. Uri Party for example, was another case in which official English name; "Our Open Party" was not picked up. 2604:2000:CFC0:1A:34DA:E32:3F4E:62F7 (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry? "열린우리당"'s official English name is "Uri Party" #1, not "Our Open Party". And it is also the same with article name in English Wikipedia. And in South Korea, "새누리당" and "더불어민주당" also was called "Saenuri Party" and "The Minjoo Party of Korea", not "New Frontier Party" and "Together Democratic Party". #2 Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: What you're proposing, User:Garam, is still a violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). We are here to build an encyclopedia, not here to enforce some Asiatic language or nationalistic appeal. You need to remember that. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kiteinthewind: In here, where is the "Asiatic" or "nationalistic"? Please keep to the record. --Garam (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You know what I'm talking about, User:Garam. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, my point on this page isn't about "Asiatic" or "nationalistic". So, I don't know your opinion. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kiteinthewind: Do you remember? All this matter began your edits (special:diff/826005231 and special:diff/825928606 etc) without consensus. --Garam (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You are now strongly advised to adhere to WP:AGF to the letter, and in the strictest manner humanly possible, User:Garam. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - perhaps Bareun Mirae Party? I don't see any results for "bareunmirae", only the name with a space. For the other two, I'm finding use in the past 30 days in reliable sources, off the first page of my Google results:

• Bareun Future Party: Xinhua, Dong-A, Hankyoreh, Korea Herald, Korea Herald again, UPI, Yonhap
• Bareun Mirae Party: UPI, Korea Times, Korea Times again

Okay, from this it looks more like Bareun Future Party is more commonly used, especially outside Korea. I'm not familiar with most of these sources, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@User:Ivanvector: The sources you cited above, for either of the names, represent some of the most reliable sources in South Korea and the world, so they are pretty good sources. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Since February 22, 2018, English news using the spelling "Bareunmirae Party" for the name this party, such as "Yonhap" ─ who is similar to "AP" in South Korea ─. Please check the date of recent news on Yonhap #3, #4, #5. And "Bareunmirae" (바른미래) in Korean language (and romanizaion of Korean) is completely the same meaning with "Bareun Mirae". Also, "Bareunmirae Party" is official English name of this party on their website. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What you said above is a WP:RECENT violation. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's really not, though. This party was created less than two months ago, all there is is recent information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And I would argue that the "evidence" given by Garam is the most recent of recent, when the "less recent of recent" information, in this case, carries more weight. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Recently, as I said, the name spelling "Bareunmirae Party" (and "Bareun Mirae Party; two terms is same in Korean lanuage) is continue to increasing rather than "Bareun Future Party" in English news since February 22, 2018. See Yonhap News and Korean Heraldo etc - Feb 28, 2018 Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@User:Garam, two articles published February 28th continue to use Bareun Future Party (Korea Herald and KBS World Radio). This is proof that Bareun Future remains in use. Since the word "Mirae" makes no sense in English, I recommend we stick to the current system, where the other name is listed in the article, but is not the article title itself. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 15:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you said to me for this party's name on Yophap last time. Now, Yonhap is using the name "Bareunmirae Party". And from what you say, not only "Mirae", but "Bareun" also don't have any meanings in English language. --Garam (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For probably the 5th time: here's the relevant convention on the naming of political parties on Wikipedia:

• The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred. Parties whose names are always kept in one language in a multilingual country also are commonly referred to by their native title in English, and so those names should be used in article titles.
  • For example, Plaid Cymru, Bloc Québécois, Likud, Kadima, and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami are used because their English translations are rarely used even in the English-language media, either inside or outside the country. Therefore, what you said about Bareun is invalid, because it falls under the "translation rarely used" protocol. The "Future/Mirae" part, however, falls under the WP:USEENGLISH convention. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 23:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: And original version of "title discussion before changing the name" is Bareunmirae Party. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - what I'm seeing is there doesn't seem to be any consistency among the various reliable English-language sources as to which name to use to refer to the party - even individual publications go back and forth. As such per WP:USEENGLISH the title ought to be the most English name that's in common use by English-language sources, which is the current title. The problem with this discussion is lack of coverage of this new, minor party among sources outside of Asia, so there's just not that much conclusive evidence to go on. The situation may change, but we have to go by what sources are available now, not what we think might happen later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: But the name "Bareun Future Party" also no have consensus. The original version of this article is "Bareunmirae Party" before user Kiteinthewind was changed contents into "Bareun Future Party". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but because there's no consensus it's my opinion that the English word "Future" is preferable to the transliterated Korean word "Mirae", since both are being used in sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Then, @Ivanvector, I believe it is time we guillotine this debate. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's not quite so clear, and people with better knowledge or different opinions might come by. I don't see any harm in letting this run the full 7 days, it's already been 4. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note: The Hankyoreh mentioned above, it changed "Bareun Future" into "Bareunmirae". # Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: And this link you mentioned above, it says "Bareun Mirae", not "Bareun Future". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Kiteinthewind: The link 1 on article also changed "Bareun Future" into "Bareun Mirae". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's still a violation of WP:USEENGLISH, and there's enough use of "Bareun Future" where the "translation rarely used" protocol comes nowhere near being applicable. No matter what, I will oppose the renaming, but I will let other genuine, non-canvassed users decide. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:DIVIDEDUSE. --Garam (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• My point is as follows:

1. Some english news is changing name of this political party on their news articles, as mentioned earlier.

2. As others said, if we don't know official name of this party, we shouldn't think name of this political party is not simply this or not now. Because this is a newly founded political party in South Korea, and it may take some time until the English language name is settled.

BAREUNMIRAE party 로 영문명이 정해졌습니다. 늦게 연락드려서 죄송합니다. → It is has been officially named "BAREUNMIRAE party" in English. Sorry for late reply.
— Bareunmirae Party

3. First of all, today this political party said to me, as above. "Bareunmirae Party" has been named as official name of this political party. And I think this relates to number 1.

• Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you said some are changing their names, but not all are doing so, and that means we must follow WP:USEENGLISH. Second, the official name of the party is not the issue here. It has clearly been stated, under Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names, that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" (which has been made clear to you at least six times already). Thirdly, that "statement" you gave us, how are we to confirm its veracity? Anyone could have made it up in a desperate attempt to shore up their arguments. It's unsourced. Besides that, the "statement" still doesn't change the fact that we don't necessarily use the official name here on Wikipedia. Ivory Coast on Wikipedia is still Ivory Coast, not Cote d'Ivoire. Czech Republic is still Czech Republic on Wikipedia, not Czechia. Likewise, South Korea on Wikipedia is South Korea, not Daehan Minguk. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Please read WP:DIVIDEDUSE.
2. See number 4 below.
3. WP:AGF; If you think I am lying, you can ask this political party for it using Twitter or Facebook. And that answer is from Facebook. Also, I already said to you for official name of this political party. See this link's below.
4. The official English name of South Korea is not "Daehan Minguk". And until now, regretfully all articles for Korean political parties on English Wikipeida are following this rule. (in other words, "official English name" became "commons name".) For this, see Saenuri Party, Minjoo Party and Bareun Party etc.

Thanks. --Garam (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For the final time (since your controversial past on kowiki is showing here now), Saenuri, Minjoo, and Bareun falls under the "translation rarely used" protocol under the relevant convention on the naming of political parties. And it doesn't matter what the official name of South Korea is. We still use South Korea on Wikipedia, and not Republic of Korea, Daehan Minguk, or anything other than "South Korea", thus, your argument is invalid. Also, official names don't necessarily matter. Also, asking for the party's name in English is an WP:OR violation, and Divided Use is irrelevant to this debate. Finally, I'm done talking to you, Garam. You have not AGFed at all in this discussion, and you have violated several tenets of WP:TE as well. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

First, South Korea use the Hangeul, not English alphabet. So, "Daehan Minguk" is not correct. Second, Saenuri, Minjoo and Bareun are official names, and it is became common names. I think you still cannot recognize "Hangeul" or "Korean". And I already suggested to you for it. And until now, Some English news is changing name of this political party on their news articles. But you have intentionally ignored it, and now you claim it is a WP:OR violation. Please read WP:OR, for what "OR" violation is. --Garam (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- (Personal attack removed) Also, Bareun Futurue seems to be widely used in recent articles as well. [1] [2] Spring3390 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much the entirety of this comment was an off-topic personal attack and I have removed it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

It does appear we are encountering the same problems here with Garam. I put the log page (link above) through Google Translate, and it appears Garam has been blocked three times (and for significant periods at a time) on kowiki since 2012 for "personal attacks", "non-collaborative attitudes", "violation of discussion guidelines", "repeated debate issues", and "A violation of a collaborative relationship" (I assume that means an AGF violation?). These are serious issues. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Garam‘s talk page prior to the ban [3] shows the user’s unwillingness to assume good faith, railroading the concensus, blatant nationalism, and -icing on the cake- threat to revert all his edits when he was first banned in 2013. The user’s recent conflicts with other users in English Wikipedia has shown that he has not changed a bit. Spring3390 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Blatant nationalism, which explains why he is railroading the change to Korean. We can't allow rules to be violated on Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC) @Spring3390: Do you remember what you said to me? I didn't visit ANI until now about your comments, such as special:diff/804513292 etc, because I believe that I can resolve several issues on Wikipedia related to you smoothly. But now I think you don't think so. It is highly regrettable. @Kiteinthewind: What is "blatant nationalism"? In other words, where is "nationalism" in here? It is only your opinion. And I think you can't recognize "Hangeul" or "Korean". So, please stop dogmatic opinion. And I think you have repeatedly and intentionally ignored my points above. That log is outside English wikipedia. And I don't understand why many times I explain it in English Wikipedia. Please read special:diff/800369593 for it, and don't cross me in further irrelevant disscusion. Also, if you don't know Korean language, please don't read it using "Google Translate". It is an obvious WP:ABF. Finally, please don't try to get off this topic. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Don't cross you? Everyone is held to the same rules on Wikipedia. Your behavior on other Wiki projects is certainly impeachable, and we are going to talk about this, because you are carrying over your behaviors from another part of the Wikipedia group of sites onto this edition of Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 05:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Please read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and don't be unreasonable. And if you want to discuss it, please visit other page. HERE is talk page for the article. --Garam (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC) I'm going to impart you with something an editor here told me a long time ago (edited to fit this situation): You seem to think you can browbeat, accuse, and insult whoever you like. When you've apologized to everyone else you insulted, you might be in a better position to lambast others. Until then, I'm busy editing articles and improving them rather than accusing other editors of being biased liars, so if you'll excuse me I'm done with this issue and you. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 05:19, 3 March 2018 (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.

Requested move 3 April 2018

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

The result of the move request was: moved. See enough agreement in this discussion to go ahead and rename this article. Along with the opposer, I first thought this debate should be "procedurally closed" as out-of-process. However after reading the supporting nomination and the rationales of the supporters, I began to see the good in having this discussion again even if it is a case of WP:IAR. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Bareun Future Party → Bareunmirae Party – It has been established that “Bareunmirae Party” is the party’s own preferred form, but what’s important under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) is the “title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country.” Under that standard, “Bareunmirae Party” remains the proper form for use on Wikipedia.

“Bareunmirae Party” is favored over “Bareun Mirae Party” and “Bareun Future Party” by wire services including Agence France-Presse (AFP), United Press International (UPI), and Korea’s own Yonhap News Agency. It is also favored by the Korea Herald, Korea JoongAng Daily, KBS World, Korea Bizwire, The Diplomat, the South China Morning Post, the Japan Times, and the Straits Times. These are major English-language sources from within Korea, from its neighboring countries, and from countries outside the region.

In a previous discussion on moving the page, the number of Google News results for Bareun Future Party was cited, but if one looks deeper, you’ll notice that many of those results are actually false positives popping up for the Bareun Party, a predecessor to Bareunmirae. Moreover, if you use quotation marks as a search operator to specify only results for the exact phrases “Bareunmirae Party,” “Bareun Mirae Party,” and “Bareun Future Party,” Bareunmirae is the most often used and Bareun Future the least common. You can also clearly see that Bareunmirae has established itself as the dominant form over time as major sources (such as Yonhap, which is essentially Korea’s equivalent of Reuters or AP) adopted it as their preferred form after previously having had either another or no preferred form when the party first appeared on the scene. This is similar to how some major English-language sources used “Righteous Party” before “Bareun Party” became the preferred form.”

There is also a precedent for naming articles on South Korean political parties with their Romanized names (as opposed to their translated ones) so long as they are the most commonly used forms. This has been true with the Saenuri Party, from which many of the Bareunmirae Party’s members defected, and the Bareun Party, which preceded the Bareunmirae Party.

On top of that, if you look, you can see that major English-language sources, such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, use both “Saenuri Party” and “New Frontier Party”—yet the presence of the alternative English translation does not in itself result in deferring or defaulting to the taking up of the less common usage “New Frontier Party” in place of the more common “Saenuri Party” on Wikipedia, even if the former is in English. This is because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does not call for only using English article titles but instead for whichever article title best reflects the “version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language.” This is “Bareunmirae Party.” Cjeongbis (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Strident Oppose and requesting close. The consensus was not to move in a debate that happened within the past two months. The admin who closed the debate said we need to wait for a much longer time before we approach the issue again. Also, KH does not favor the name Bareunmirae Party. In fact, an article published April 2nd used "Bareun Future". An English article by Dong-A Ilbo also used "Bareun Future". UPI, Straits Times, and Xinhua also used "Bareun Future" within the past month alone. There appears to be a consensus, even within Korea, to use "Bareun Future" when referring to the party in English. In addition, it has not been established, by any stretch of imagination, that "Bareunmirae" is the official name. It was only based on an claim by another user that I have since called into question (not the least because it was "established" by violating WP:OR) Also, it has clearly been stated that official names do not necessarily matter on Wikipedia, which another user has conveniently decided to ignore, by all means necessary. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 07:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand and respect Kiteinthewind's position, but I don't believe his assertions are in evidence. If you go to the Korea Herald's website, a quick search shows that they have used all three names at various points in time; they have used "Bareun Mirae Party" six times since the beginning of March, "Bareun Future Party" seven times since the beginning of March, and "Bareunmirae Party" 19 times since the beginning of March. UPI and the Straits Times have not mentioned the party very many times, but UPI has used "Bareunmirae Party" most often and in its most recent coverage of the party and the Straits Times has likewise used "Bareunmirae Party" most often and in its most recent coverage of the party. I could go on, but I think it should be clear that Kiteinthewind's argument that "There appears to be a consensus, even within Korea, to use 'Bareun Future' when referring to the party in English" is not correct. My original reasoning for having the article title be "Bareunmirae Party" was that the article title should reflect the “version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language,” in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and I believe that Kiteinthewind's noting of the existence of other usages does not refute that reasoning, as "Bareunmirae Party" remains the most commonly used form of the party's name in major English-language sources. One last (minor) note, I also want to clarify and reiterate that in the first paragraph of my reasoning, I stated that the party's official name is not what's important under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). Cjeongbis (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The opening of yet another divisive move discussion, merely weeks after the last one, is counterproductive and definitely out-of-process. The last debate resulted in a "No Move" verdict, and we were told to wait before talking about it again. To circumvent that discussion with yet another discussion is fruitless, in my opinion, especially when it has been proven (by Cjeongbis himself/herself, no less) that there is still no commonly accepted term for this party amongst certain publications. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is one worth having, even if the verdict is to again wait to change the name. If one looks to Yonhap, you can see that they have used "Bareun Mirae Party" once since the beginning of March, "Bareun Future Party" twice since the beginning of March, and "Bareunmirae Party" 42 times since the beginning of March. I would continue to argue that the existence of sparse usage of "Bareun Future Party" should not be used as a justification to displace the most common usage, "Bareunmirae Party," on Wikipedia — much in the same way that the less common, but still existing, use of "New Frontier Party" should not displace the more common "Saenuri Party" on Wikipedia. Cjeongbis (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support: as per my opinion of previous discussion. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - my opinion in the previous discussion was that there was not yet consensus among English-language sources about the less-than-one-month-old (at the time) party and so no opinion could be formed, but in the past two months this has evidently skewed toward predominant use of the proposed title (the organization's stated official name). In situations such as these, we would only prefer the translated English title if that title was quite significantly predominant in English sources over the official title. An example of that is Austrian People's Party, where next to no English sources use its official name, Österreichische Volkspartei. That's not the case here, and really it never was. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (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.