This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This page is under the stewardship of WikiProject Conservatism; changes to it should reflect consensus. If you are planning to make any significant changes, please discuss them first.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
National Problem of the People's Republic of China
As a result of leaving the template's image empty under the current consensus, some users are constantly adding the National Emblem of the People's Republic of China as an image. Chinese conservatism is an ideology that existed before 1949, and the mainland ROC or modern Taiwanese conservatism, including Chiang Kai-shek, and the Qing conservatism before it can never be linked to the PRC. Therefore, the Qing China Dragon image should be applied to prevent some users from adding images reminiscent of the PRC. ProgramT (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do these qualify?
Since I don't yet know enough about this matter, I'd like to ask @ProKMT and others:
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)[reply]
I believe the Conservatism in China template should be deleted because its scope is already covered by more specific templates:
Redundant with "Neoauthoritarianism in China" – This template already addresses conservative ideologies in the PRC, which makes a separate Conservatism in China template unnecessary.
Hong Kong and Taiwan Have Their Own Templates – Since conservatism in Hong Kong and Taiwan has distinct characteristics, separate templates already exist for them. This ensures better clarity and avoids unnecessary overlap.
I am baffled that there is a neoauthoritarianism template. Although I feel I originally put together something coherent, the neoauthoritarianism page is a butchered skeleton that would have to be filled out with more legitimate references. If any exist.FourLights (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the CCP and CCP politicans is referred to as "conservative" or de facto "right-wing" in many sources, Guotaian opposed adding a CCP link to Template:Conservatism in China.[1] There is clearly a conservatism within the CCP, and it is worth mentioning.
@Guotaian:@Simonm223:@Wcquidditch:@Esolo5002:@CWH:@GuardianH:@Chipmunkdavis:
I'm tired of the edit war with Guotaian. Since Guotaian and I have serious disagreements about the categories that should be covered in template, I suggest discussion to other users.
Solution 1 (Guotaian's view, status quo) - "China" belongs only to the Mainland PRC since 1949, not to Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, or the pre-1949 ROC.
I don't think this is necessarily a binary. Political theories cross borders anyway. What do relevant sources cover? CMD (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Solution 1 There are clear preservative grounds for keeping the status quo. It's already been established that "Taiwan" refers to ROC and vice versa, and any distinctions are already made clear in their respective pages, including for Hong Kong, Macau, etc. An edit war of this scale is regularly taken to WP:ANI with sanctions/edit blocks for both editors. GuardianH07:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Taiwan" before 1945 is not "Republic of China". This is a historical fact preferred by the DPP camp rather than the KMT camp. If we confine "China" to "PRC" only, "China" would not exist before 1949. Conservatism in the ROC before 1949 or Conservatism in the Qing Dynasty is Conservatism in China. ProKMT (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Solution 2 "China" is not limited to the PRC: in the sources, in Wikipedia predominant usage, in the article Conservatism in China, and in the nature of the topic. If there are separate templates for Taiwan and other places, then many articles would have to post two or more templates. ch (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have just that in the status quo "Conservatism in Taiwan" and "Conservatism in China". It's already been explained that Taiwan is another term for the Republic of China, so both Taiwan and ROC include Chinese history. Keep in mind Solution 2 involves creating one template for "Conservatism in China" and "Conservatism in Greater China", which is a POV term. GuardianH20:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that there should be one template - Conservatism in China that is associated with one core page - Conservatism in China - that addresses, at a high level, conservatism as it is applied to Chinese political philosophy across the area that has historically been considered part of China. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Solution 1 – This is like a rehash of the debate on if China should be primarily about the PRC or not. Like that debate, which is almost as old as the English Wikipedia itself is, editors keep citing existing work on the Chinese Wikipedia as if it's desirable to mirror it. The use of common names and official names in Chinese cultural and political discussions are different from English (or generally non-East Asian) equivalents; it's why the debates on the Chinese Wikipedia focus on differing aspects. I don't see the validity of creating a template which groups topics based on a shifting and arbitrary political parameter (Greater China). Having templates for Conservatism in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc., is more straightforward, especially given the existing content in the articles linked. I.e., very few of the articles even touch on the idea of a Greater China, so why is their a template grouping them all under that parameter? Yue🌙02:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, it is because the framing of Conservatism in China pushes the concept back to Confucius, and more recently to Chiang Kai-shek, suggesting a common topic that has influenced both of the post-1949 governments. CMD (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The History section right now looks more like human rights and other complaints about China, not a history of conservatism in China. The Related topics section also has some questionable inclusions, such as presenting various anti-(target) movements all as conservative. Vacosea (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
@ProgramT you are edit warring. Please self-revert and come to talk to discuss your very broad interpretation of classical Chinese philosophy and Communist Party policy as conservatism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confucianism and Legalism is a traditional Asian value, and it has something to do with modern Chinese conservatism. I am strongly opposed to removing Confucianism and Legalism from the template. Other than Simonm223, there was no attempt at removing Confucianism and Legalism from the template at all. Also, I don't think this template is an 'anglosphere bias' at all. East and Southeast Asians know better than Americans that the actual ideology of the CCP is not communism. The current template rather barely reflects the anti-communist anglosphere bias. ProgramT (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conservatism is a specific philosophical perspective and one that is younger than Confucianism and Legalism. As I mentioned in my edit summary, putting a conservatism template on confucianism is somewhat like putting it on Platonism in that, while it may contain elements that led to the eventual construction of that world view it is not a part of that world view because it predates it. I asked you for reliable sources especially for legalism and you provide none.
Legalism, a school of thought that emphasizes strict laws and punishments to maintain order, can be seen as having conservative elements, particularly regarding its emphasis on authority and tradition.[2] Jiang Zemin and Xi Jinping Thought are included as 'Related' because Jiang and Xi are neo-authoritarians. ProgramT (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Misquoted the source. This is the 'real' source [3] I'm against radical change, as no other user is arguing that Legalism or Xi Jinping thought should be removed from the template at the moment. ProgramT (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The linked chapter does not mention conservatism at all. Please read the references you provide prior to providing them. This is becoming disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources related to the connection between Chinese conservatism and legalism:
... Han Fei-tzu's Legalism advocates a thoroughly authoritative conservatism which exalts the position of the ruler ...Chinese Philosophy: Confucianism & other schools. Chinese Culture University Press, China Academy. 1984. p. 238.
The 1990s saw the rise of more conservative explorations of Chinese legalism, such as those focusing on national culture and what we termed above “legal indigenization.”Building Constitutionalism in China. Palgrave Macmillan. 2009. p. 133.
The first one is outdated. Seriously? A 40 year-old text book? The second one is not saying something anywhere near broad enough to justify inclusion. This really looks like a post-hoc attempt to justify an inclusion that was made on WP:OR. If this is the best you have, Legalism really needs to come off this list and stay off. I have been very patient here but it's clear you have no appropriate supporting sources. 10:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed not only [Legalism], but also [Confucianism], which obviously has something to do with Chinese conservatism. ProgramT (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you before that Confucianism predates Conservatism and, as such, sources are required. WP:RS has no exception for categories. I'd also ask you actually read the sources before posting them here, unlike last time. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For compromise, I removed a number of links, including Xi Jinping Thought.[4][5] But I think Xi Jinping Thought and the Xi Jinping faction belong to the Chinese conservatism; as you can see the editing of Thehistorianisaac includes the Xi Jinping faction, it's a dogmatic decision to be your editing, and the editing of most users other than me is more like me, not nim. ProgramT (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am arguing for a policy-based approach. That means you need reliable sources. I'd say the same thing to any other editor. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's proto-conservatism. Proto-fascism, pro-feminism, and proto-communism existed even before fascism, feminism, and communism. You can't deny that Confucianism is a key element of Chinese conservatism. ProgramT (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be very exceptionally clear one last time: You are not a reliable source on Wikipedia. To make this claim you need reliable sources. Presently, at Confucianism there is one in-text reference to Conservatism. In Just Hierarchy, Daniel Bell and Wang Pei argue that hierarchies are inevitable. Faced with ever-increasing complexity at scale, modern societies must build hierarchies to coordinate collective action and tackle long-term problems such as climate change. In this context, people need not—and should not—want to flatten hierarchies as much as possible. They ought to ask what makes political hierarchies just and use these criteria to decide the institutions that deserve preservation, those that require reform, and those that need radical transformation. They call this approach "progressive conservatism", a term that reflects the ambiguous place of the Confucian tradition within the Left-Right dichotomy.
As you can see they say that Confucianism holds an ambiguous place within the left-right dichotomy. This is insufficient to put it in a category. Because the article presently demurs to call Confucianism conservative at all and certainly not in wiki voice. As there is no reliable sourcing to support your claim it is an unsupported claim. And so it should be removed from the category. Now there are three ways forward at this point:
Provide reliable sourcing to support the inclusion of Confucanism.
I completely disagree with your view that Confucianism does not belong to conservatism because it does not belong to the traditional left-right dichotomy. So, why does the term Left-conservative exist? Confucian ideas are economically progressive and socially conservative, like modern Christian democracies; Christian democracies belong to conservatism. I have given the source that Confucianism and Legalism are [Chinese] conservatives, so I hope they are no longer removed from the template. ProgramT (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The TLS source does not call Confucianism conservative. It, instead, says that Chinese Marxists called Confucianism conservative and that they mischaracterized it.
The Jamestown Foundation is an advocacy group and, as such, its opinions should be attributed which makes it inappropriate as a stand-alone source for a category inclusion.
I brought 3 random sources connecting Confucianism and conservatism, and I can bring a lot more. What is certain is that the editors except you actively agreed, or at least did not raise objections, that Confucianism and Legalism belonged to Chinese conservatism. The Jamestown Foundation source was cited by Trekking before me. ProgramT (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'd implore you to read the sources and provide WP:BESTSOURCES rather than three random sources that hit a keyword search. I didn't say the Jamestown Foundation source was entirely unreliable. I said it was an advocacy group and its opinions should be attributed which makes it inappropriate to use alone for inclusion in a category. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is quite long already. It should really include only major themes and topics. Why don't you begin with reliable sources on conservatism in China first. If they actually cover whatever other topics in detail, then we can include them. Vacosea (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
China has the second largest population in the world, so there is bound to be more content than the template related to conservatism in other countries. In addition, there is an agreement among users that the current template will include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. ProgramT (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
