Talk:Neoauthoritarianism (China)

References failed verification
Probably due to changes in google books, one of my sources has failed verification, Beijing 1989. However, I have access to this book. I can go through the book front to back and expand on the subject, but it probably won't happen for awhile, I am working on my main page, Chinese Legalism, and secondly Ding Richan. I do still intend to improve it within the next year.FourLights (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Although I am mainly working on the Chinese Legalism page, I came back and pointed the reference to a correct page number for Wu Jixiang's theory. When I originally wrote it I relied on google books. The google book does not have page numbers for whatever reason, and the link became incorrect.FourLights (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources Reviewed (self-note)
I'm checking sources to see that nothings gotten mixed up.FourLights (talk) Need to read https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/introduction-the-singapore-model-and-chinas-neoauthoritarian-dream/2ED7A22E42E1D9E2CA3A116047C8D58D/core-reader

Made use of Media, Market, and Democracy in China. Re-checking Conservative Thought in Contemporary China for material. Writing material using source Sirens of the Strongman. Writing material using source Development and democracyFourLights (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC) I will try and prioritize working on this this coming month.FourLights (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal July 2019
I'd like to propose merging New Conservatism (China) into this article and expanding its scope to the current day. These concepts are not exactly the same, but are so closely related that it's hard to justify two distinct articles: "New Conservatism" was a rebranding of the Southern (Shanghai) School of neoauthoritarianism beginning around the end of the 80s, and after the rival Northern (Beijing) School of neoauthoritarianism was suppressed post-1989, neoauthoritarianism and New Conservatism became effectively identical. This history is not currently described in this article, but can be reviewed on pp. 53–4 of Van Dongen's 2019 monograph on Chinese ideology post-89 (and in the Fewsmith 1995 article cited at New Conservatism (China)).

In their 2018 academic survey (open access) of current Chinese political theory, Cheek et al. mention neo-conservatism and neo-authoritarianism as identical: "Initial consultations with Chinese colleagues have emphasized two other trends of sichao: neo-authoritarianism (or new conservatism) ...". Another mention in a 2019 source similarly cites them together. As far as the usage in China itself goes, Baike Baidu's article on neoauthoritarianism (while not an RS in itself) confirms the view of recent English sources, stating 在九十年代以后，新权威主义在新的背景、新的问题下继续发展 ("neoauthoritarianism continues to develop under new conditions and new problems after the 90s").

For the mechanics of the merger, I think the best option would be to preserve 's good work here, while incorporating the small amount of info (mostly by me) at New Conservatism (China) into the lede and in a new section on later developments (which doesn't need to be too long as neoauthoritarianism/neoconservatism is far less prominent as an explicit academic current than it was in the 80s and 90s). Also pinging as significant contributors at New Conservatism (China). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 00:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't look at this article for a long time and have no objections. As I remember, the term was translated into English both as neo-conservatism and new conservatism. Since the first phrase has come to refer to a specific school, I recommended using the second to avoid confusion. TFD (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My article is expansive. what I could do is expand the Neo conservatism article, but I don't know how you would put them together as is.FourLights (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite expansive enough, since it doesn't cover neoauthoritarianism's development post–early 1990s—which it would do if the articles were merged! I described how that merge could take place above (incorporate detail into new section on post-90s developments and a few sentences in the lede). The term "neoconservatism" is no longer widely used for this current in its contemporary form either in Chinese or English literature, so it should be recognized as a temporary rebranding of neoauthoritarianism per the sources I listed above and redirected here. Note the biography of Xiao Gongqin, who invented the term "neoconservatism", at CCR does not even mention it now and describes him as a "leading scholar of neoauthoritarianism" . —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just checked through the references here, and at the moment only one of them (He Li, ref 2) is more recent than 2008. He is, unsurprisingly, also the one that clarifies that neoauthoritarianism is a contemporary current that has "resurfaced since Xi Jinping" became leader (p. 31), not a dead one from the 80s–90s, and also clarifies that neoconservatism is a rebranding of it (p. 38). So this looks like it's potentially just a problem stemming from outdated sources. [Edit: Not even that, apparently, since after checking Chinese Economic Development by Bramall he also discusses neoauthoritarianism continuing after 1997 .] —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

When I say my article is expansive, I mean that it was exhaustively sourced using all material available to me, unless I need to check for university material, or order a book that wasn't available on google books. If I don't talk about neoconservativism enough it's because it wasn't the search term I used. I can go ahead and research Chinese neoconservativism when I have the time, I just have a little math I need to do.FourLights (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already listed some additional material above and in the sources of New Conservatism (China), notably the very recent 2019 Els van Dongen book which discusses this specific subject in a lot of detail. If you have no disagreement in principle then I'm happy to undertake the merge myself, including reviewing the existing material in this article and adding the additional content. Since I have academic access credentials I can add details on journal articles as needed, though that's a separate issue. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 20:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no specific objection but I don't know enough on the subjective personally to approve you myself. I was looking at the book mentioned as we speak. I of course appreciate any assistance.FourLights (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I stopped by the library today and happened to pick up on an article by Barry Sautman. I'll probably be incorporating material from this before I merge the articles, but you can expect it to happen.FourLights (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any insights from the book relevant to the merge? Klbrain (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I will try and prioritize working on this this coming month.FourLights (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Tone
The tone of this article is not encyclopedic and sounds like an academic/journal article. The main issue is that the language and wording of the article provokes questions from the readers, rather than giving factual statements.

Examples:
 * Uncertainty and challenging the premise: "Neoauthoritarianism is a political thought in the People's Republic of China, if not of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) itself..."
 * More uncertainty: "Though apparently taking a backseat to market socialism..."

Centre Left Right ✉ 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

My background in doing this consists of a large amount of subject reading, having had a decent high school teacher, a few English classes in college, some foolish initial practice, and a lot of writing and editing of the Chinese Legalism page. I appreciate that you consider the article to be of academic quality.

Based on your feedback, I've consolidated relevant material into its own section. I consider it a reasonable point, and it makes sense organizationally. Feel free to continue criticism and recommendations.

However, while I will be reviewing the article, including in tone, and you can suggest information and guidelines on writing a more "encyclopedic" article, the material itself seems appropriate enough to me, and I don't have anything to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia articles are still scholarly based as far as I know, and the guidelines encourage a technical spirit, not a reductionist one.

The subject is, itself, a current of thought relating with a government entity perhaps lacking complete transparency, and judgements regarding its apparent course, and not simply an objective subject. If the article reflects this, it's to some extent because the sources do, though I can try to improve my style of writing.

I don't see that an "unbiased" if not complete article wouldn't include a presentation on views on the subject, of which mine were, at time of writing, a complete summary report from the known material (which was also summistic). If such material is indeed unfitting, feel free to report back with the relevant guidelines.FourLights (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tone 2
I'm probably a little more experienced now and can try to improve the tone writing of the article.FourLights (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)