Template talk:Conservatism in China

Original research

This template may suffer from WP:OR issues because some of its entries do not speak about conservatism at all. An obvious example is Want Want. The only reason I can imagine is that they have been accused of having close links to the Chinese Communist Party, as stated in the article, but that means the reader has to make the leap from the assertion that the Chinese Communist Party is conservative, therefore cooperating with them makes you conservative. Yue🌙 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Want Want is a pan-blue company. However, I will erase it by reflecting your claim. In the future, you can delete the text that you see as WP:OR yourself. Thanks. ProKMT (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@ProKMT and Yue: It's too early. The definition of conservatism in the Chinese context is not that clear-cut a thing, and the current template is missing at least the cultural conservatism of the 1990s (with only one entry for the Farewell to Revolution) and the anti-reformist left-wing ideas of the 1970s that being called "conservatism". ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 12:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Conservatives in the Cultural Revolution mean little different from conservative Republicans in the Reconstruction era. This is not included in the Template:Conservatism US ProKMT (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

保守派 and 保守主義者 are different. Both words translate to "conservative" in English, but the former is not conservative as an ideology. The modern Chinese Communist Party is more of Chiang Kai-shek's conservatism than Soviet-style communism. That's why it is called neoconservatism. The Red Guard's conservatism is orthodox Maoism, which has nothing to do with current 'neoconservatism' in China. However, Conservative Faction (Cultural Revolution) was also transferred to the 'Related topics' section because it is classified as conservatism in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Neoauthoritarianism

It is unfair to remove articles related to this from the template. Wang Huning claimed himself to be a conservative or neo-authoritarian, and had an important influence on China's ideological history. In addition, there are scholars who describe the Chinese Communist Party as "conservative." These are not WP:OR. ProKMT (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. There is not a single word "conservative" or "conservatism" in Wikipedia articles like Chinese Communist Party and China Times. So, adding these articles related to the CCP which mentions no conservatism to this template is weird. GoldWitness (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why it's not the "Chinese Communist Party" but the "Chinese Communist Party (Neoauthoritarian, alleged)." The CCP supports conservative and Han Chinese chauvinist policies. There are also politicians within the CCP who openly advocate "neoconservatism" or "neoauthoritarian". Above all, the pro-Beijing "conservatism" in Hong Kong and Macau cannot be separated from the CCP. "Chinese Communist Party (Neoauthoritarian, alleged)" should be maintained on the template. (Cases that are not directly related but are worth referencing: Template:Conservatism in Russia includes Neo-Sovietism and Nostalgia for the Soviet Union.) ProKMT (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Anti-CCP and conservatism

It could be WP:SYNTH that equates the two. Opposing the Chinese Communist Party does not necessarily mean they are conservatives.

Advocating for capitalism and liberal democracy does not mean conservatism. In Chinese Wikipedia, articles relating to the Chinese Communist Party (since the 1990s) are linked to conservatism, but anti-communist liberals are not linked to conservatives. ProKMT (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for putting forward your opinion. However, it is also incorrect that 0% of the anti-communist liberals are linked to conservatives. Some of them have the word "conservative" or "conservatism" in their English and/or Chinese articles. So, adding them to the template will not be WP:SYNTH. GoldWitness (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there are any conservatives among anti-communist liberals. Anti-communist liberals some are conservatives and some are non-conservatives. ProKMT (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Image

I think it's better to use Qing China Dragon than KMT Emblem. Chinese Wikipedia often uses China Dragon images in Templates related to 'China' in a context that includes both ROC and PRC. ProKMT (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ProKMT: It's better to use neither because you have not (yet) provided a reliable source which links a customized version of the Qing dynasty Azure dragon symbol with Chinese conservatism in general. You reference the Chinese Wikipedia often in your edit summaries, but just because another WikiProject, or even within the same WikiProject, i.e. the English Wikipedia, has something one way does not mean it should be that way across the board, unless a consensus (which is often contained within WikiProjects) has been established to do so. If citing other parts of Wikipedia was valid (it isn't, see WP:CIRCULAR), then what would stop one editor from just changing parts en masse and citing their own edits?

I am challenging your unsourced cosmetic choice and removing it. Provide a reliable source for your choice, as my current opinion is that you are fabricating a connection that does not exist. Yue🌙 05:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yue: But China Dragon is still a symbol of CHINA or 中華. China Dragon is a very important part of Chinese culture. If I were to create a new article called Template:Liberalism in China (though I don't intend to create it for now), I would also edit adding China Dragon as a representative image. China Dragon is not a symbol of "Chinese [modern] conservatism", but it is a symbol of CHINA, and the current name of Template is "conservatism in CHINA". ProKMT (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@ProKMT: Except this template isn't about China generally. If your image choice is based on one part of your topic, that's poor image selection, especially when the other part is just as important. If you selected a profile image for your username, you wouldn't use just a checkmark to symbolize "pro", right? You'd use a combination of images which represent both parts of your username.

The reason why I'm challenging your use of a Chinese dragon image, which was custom-made and has no official or even unofficial use, is because it seems to me that you picked it purely for decorative reasons, which is against MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. It doesn't matter if you in particular think that that specific image of a Chinese dragon is a good representation of Zhonghua because nobody would give you that authority to decide and even if they did, your template is on Conservatism in China, not China generally. The image is wholly irrelevant, which baffles me because I assumed you chose it based on a perceived connection you had between the image and your topic, but now you're saying it was purely a cosmetic choice. Yue🌙 17:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I am requesting a third opinion to avoid repeated arguments. Yue🌙 17:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I see no reason why an emblem/image is needed at all. A complex topic such as "Conservatism in China" is in no need of a decorative image which does not "provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation" (WP:DECOR). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trakking: KMT Emblem are used not only in KMT, but also in Taiwanese flags and other official symbols (even when the DPP was in power). In addition, the current "Conservatism in China" template is used in pro-CCP conservative articles such as Neoauthoritarianism (China), Wang Huning, Hu Xijin, Global Times, and Carrie Lam. Therefore, I oppose using KMT Emblem as a representative image of the "Conservatism in China" template. ProKMT (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

KMT was not a solidly right-wing party during mainland's rule and was more of a big tent. It had the Wuhan Nationalist government, and during Sun Yat-sen's leadership, many of the communists were KMT members. Even Chiang Kai-shek was a socialist at first. Therefore, the KMT does not represent China's conservatism. In Taiwan today, national identity politics – whether 'Chinese' or 'Taiwanese' – takes precedence over – 'conservative' or 'progressive' – ideology. ProKMT (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research

For an article to be considered part of a series in conservatism in China, it should have high-quality sources and contextual support for that claim. Going through Conservatism in China, most of the linked articles barely mention conservatism, or mention it only after ProKMT's recent edits. This raises serious concerns about Wikipedia:No original research. Vacosea (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

All the articles mentioned in Conservatism in China are classical examples of conservatism. There’s nothing controversial included; everything can be supported by reliable sources. Trakking (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Some are but others are not. If you are interested, consider expanding them before adding to the outline. Vacosea (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove some redundant and irrelevant items

Information including the inclusion of the CCP and some other organizations are irrelevant to the discussion of 'conservatism in china'. Some information can be kept but those that doesn't have full consensus should be removed. Guotaian (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the scope of what's included is too broad sometimes unsupported as pointed out many times. Vacosea (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Guotaian is overly mechanical and formalistic. If the CCP officially advocates communism, but "pro-Beijing camp" is Chinese conservative, why is the CCP irrelevant to Chinese conservatism? There are countless sources that describe the CCP itself as conservative.

But I don't want any more conflict. Just as 'Liberalism US' template and 'Modern liberalism US' template exist separately. I will separate 'Conservatism in China' template and 'Neoconservatism in China' template. Instead of removing CCP from 'Conservatism in China' template, I will add CCP from 'Neoconservatism in China' template. ProKMT (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Several editors have pointed out that you rely on original research too much, so simply switching from conservatism to neoconservatism would not address that. Vacosea (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I added some CCP politicians for your information Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue for a long time. However, CCP should also be included in the template. While the CCP itself is not a conservative, the neo-cons within the CCP play a key role in modern Chinese conservatism. ProKMT (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do these qualify?

Since I don't yet know enough about this matter, I'd like to ask @ProKMT and others:

• Ambrose King
• Hsu Dau-lin

Just strike entries out if they aren't accurate and or already in the template at some later point. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's more about their biographies, which should describe how the person or their work was a non-trivial part of conservatism in China. Vacosea (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)