Talk:Taiwan People's Party

Discussion at Talk:Democratic Progressive Party#RfC on replacing left–right position with cross-Strait position

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Democratic Progressive Party#RfC on replacing left–right position with cross-Strait position. Ythlev (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Stance on Taiwanese independence/Chinese unification?

Someone with knowledge about Taiwanese politics please add information about this. This being the English Wikipedia the information given is intended for outside observers and this topic is far more important for outside observers then their domestic politics. 2A02:8109:9B80:3CDC:25B1:13EF:5E86:A917 (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the TPP appropriately characterized as populist?

According to political scientist Jan-Werner Müller's (2016) definition, a populist political figure is based on three main elements-anti-pluralism, criticizing the elite and the existing political system, and distinguishing the boundaries of real people. However, it is clear from the statements made by the party's chairman, Ko Wen-je, that he and the party he created support pluralism, respect professionals (and even lean somewhat towards elitism), and advocate unity and tolerance. This clearly does not fit the general definition of populism.

Describing a political party as populist is a common attack, and we should be more careful in our analysis when writing the description populist. 星枢 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the Chinese Wikipedia has a discussion on this issue, which is worth referring to. 星枢 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

For the last time, this is your original conclusion. There had already been multiple academic sources backing the claim up-AINH (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the Taiwan People's Party appropriately characterized as populist?(RfC)

Is the Taiwan People's Party appropriately characterized as populist? 星枢 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an editor who strongly supports the Democratic Progressive Party(Opponents of the Taiwan People's Party) on his Chinese Wikipedia user page and persistently believes that the Taiwan People's Party is populist. He have cited numerous articles by Western observers, including some from academic sources, to support their viewpoint. However, I believe that these articles exhibit clear bias or lack adequate understanding on this issue. It is well known that the United States and the United Kingdom generally support Taiwan's distancing from China and tend to favor the DPP. In my view, these articles carry evident biases. 星枢 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Just as we should not use articles from Chinese institutions to define the DPP, I find the referencing value of these articles highly questionable. When determining whether a political party is populist, perhaps we should primarily assess it based on the key characteristics of populism: According to political scholar Jan-Werner Müller (2016), a populist political figure possesses three main elements: anti-pluralism, criticism of elites and existing political systems, and drawing boundaries to distinguish the "true people" (i.e., considering a certain group as "purer" or "better"). However, it is evident from the statements made by the party's chairman, Ko Wen-je, and the party he founded, that they support diversity, respect professionals (even leaning towards elitism to some extent), and advocate unity and tolerance. This clearly does not align with the general definition of populism. Here are some articles that describe the definition of populism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43301423.amp 星枢 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said in zh, there are lots of different sources referencing it. Even if there is dispute to the definition (which, for the billionth times, using YOUR own judgement in the first place is textbook WP:OR), it is Wikipedia's job to report all significant viewpoints-AINH (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

(Copying my response from the Chinese Wikipedia.) I believe that if a consensus can be reached within the community regarding facts that can be derived through simple logical reasoning, there is no need to retain such a description. Logical reasoning process: ① [Major premise] It is necessary to have evidence indicating that a political party exhibits the three core characteristics of "anti-pluralism, anti-elitism, and distinguishing the boundaries of the true people" to judge that a certain political party is populist. ② [Minor premise] There is no evidence indicating that the Taiwan People's Party possesses these characteristics. ③ [Conclusion] The Taiwan People's Party should not be described as populist. 星枢 (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Another: (1)How to define populism is a social science question, so non-mainstream viewpoints should be classified as fringe theories. If these fringe theories do not have a certain level of recognition in society, there is no need to include them. However, if they have a certain level of recognition, they should be listed separately, like the Flat Earth theory. (2)You can search using the keywords "Democratic Progressive Party" and "populism," and you will find numerous references (including academic sources) that discuss the connection between the Democratic Progressive Party and populism. However, this does not mean that it is necessary to list the Democratic Progressive Party as populism in the list. (3)We are currently discussing the entry rather than editing it. I am using a simple syllogistic reasoning to explain that my viewpoint is not original research. (4)"Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. The term 'fact' refers to 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" In my assertion, there are three pieces of information: ①the major premise, ②the minor premise, and ③the reliability of syllogistic reasoning. All of these are pieces of information that do not involve serious disputes, so there is no problem with the conclusion I have drawn. 星枢 (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If there are many privileged sources using the term "populism", it will probably be used by this article. You will need to find more sources that disagree with that label. TPP does not come across as ideologically populist, but it definitely is popular among young Taiwanese. CurryCity (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No, unless citing both sources saying yes and no, to present differrent points of view. WP:NPOV. Agree with 星枢 that stating the facts would render the labelling unnecessary. Path2space (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, not sure I follow. There are various reliable sources (see below references) describing or characterizing the TPP as populist. Shouldn’t this fact alone be enough to warrant stating it in the article? Why is “labeling” an issue? If this label is being disputed by a WP:RS, then the article can discuss the appropriateness of the label further. But so far, it seems like the opposition to the populist label here is driven mainly by WP:OR and clear bias against “Western observers” on one editor’s part. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, populist is not firmly established. I won't oppose the descriptor for now, but I do think it's being judged too early by the media. In the future we might gain a better perspective. CurryCity (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• (Note: RFC Submitter) No. Please refer to the previous text and the discussion on Chinese Wikipedia for more information. https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:互助客栈/条目探讨?markasread=35122721&markasreadwiki=zhwiki#台湾民众党是否应归类为民粹主义？ --星枢 (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. Populism vs elitism is a worthless bipartism. I would also against labeling republican party as populism just because of Trump.-- Kennyluck (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to remind folks. Having "(debated)" in an infobox simply means the whole line should not be there. This thingy could go somewhere else. IDC. Kennyluck (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reading more, I think it's fair to label both GOP/Trump and TPP/Ko as having the E-democracy ideology (although I know nothing about the definition of ideology), but I wouldn't waste my time on waging a war in GOP's infobox. Kennyluck (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Please note the RFC submitter is canvassing on zh Wikipedia and asking editors there to vote here. And again, it is Wikipedia's job to report all significant viewpoints. The references I provided are more than enough to prove this viewpoint exists. And if we were to use the same standard that was put on me on 星枢, of the two reverence he put out, one of them was referring to Ko himself instead of the party, and the other one is Ko's own speech. I was the one who put "(debated)" in the first place as a compromise and now you are using it to say the whole line should not be there-AINH (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  ① I didn't canvassing. I @ed all the editors involved in the discussion, including you. ② As for your other doubts, I have already explained them very clearly on Chinese Wikipedia. As long as your cognitive abilities are intact, you should be able to understand. I don't want to repeat myself anymore. Other interested editors can refer to Chinese Wikipedia. 星枢 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anything about populism is significant, given that the opening paragraph of the article says "some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether". But then you are free to report this debate in a separate paragraph in article.

  I am grateful enough that folks don't do this labeling in DPP's infobox, when academic papers about this are even more. Kennyluck (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. As in, keep references to populism. This is reported by various reliable sources such as Barron’s, NBC, BBC, Eurasia Review and is descriptive. To keep a WP:NPOV, we can phrase it as something like “The TPP has been characterized as populist by various media outlets.” Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't mind if anyone bothers to do some work in the article. I am only against this bothersome tagging in the infobox. Kennyluck (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think I agree, assuming you’re talking about the “debated” parenthetical. The party and its leader Ko have been reported by various sources as populist, so I don’t think we need to nor should do any additional WP:OR to debate what this means or dispute its accuracy. Unless there is notable reporting on how this is a mischaracterization, I don’t see an issue with keeping the populist in the infobox. Butterdiplomat (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes I select this option because the rules say page text must be written based on sources and the sources must be exactly followed. I have done a search of sources. The party is very new so I could not find much academic literature so I also searched for good news sources.

• Kuo 2024: "Established five years ago as a “third force” in opposition to both the DPP and KMT, the TPP is a personalistic—even populist—party largely centered on Ko."
• Bush 2021: "Ko When-che could mount another populist challenge in the 2024 presidential campaign. The Taiwan People's Party, which formed in 2020, could help propel that challenge by giving Ko an organizational base that he has so far lacked."
• Maclean 2024: "the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which was initially aligned with the more pro-independence DPP but gradually shifted towards a more moderate stance and now offers a populist alternative."
• Nikkei Asia 2023: "Former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je, of the upstart populist Taiwan People's Party (TPP)
• East Asia Forum 2024: "Taiwan People's Party's populist 'none-of-the-above' politics."
• NBC News 2024: "Ko Wen-je, founder of the populist Taiwan People’s Party."
• The Hindu 2024: "The race also saw the rise of the upstart populist Taiwan People's Party (TPP)"
• France24 2024: "The race has also seen the rise of the upstart populist Taiwan People's Party (TPP)"

Braxmate (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

TPP corruption investigation

Why is there no discussion of the investigation of party head Ko and the sprawling corruption scandals engulfing the party? 61.218.136.226 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is being covered in Ko Wen-je but certainly should be discussed here as well given direct implications. I am happy to add some content and sourcing, but feel free to add yourself as well. Butterdiplomat (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say only to the extent that affects the party as a whole. CurryCity (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)