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)
 * 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 than. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 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 (WP:DECOR). &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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 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)