Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservatism in Greater China

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was revert the page move and delete the quasi-disambiguation page‎. I.e., this page is moved back to Conservatism in China, and the quasi-disambiguation page now there is deleted. Sandstein 12:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in Greater China

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Conservatism in Greater China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unambiguous POV fork of Conservatism in China. Anything usable from it should be merged back into the parent article. There was no need to fork this off. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the title of the article is China, it is unclear whether it refers to "mainland PRC" as "[PRC-dominated] Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland" or "Greater China". On the other hand, if the title of the article is Greater China, it clearly includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.
I had no choice but to move the title from "-China" to "-Greater China", because Guotaian is obsessed with leaving out Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan from "Conservatism in China". Even if the title of the article goes back to "-China" rather than "-Greater China", I think it should absolutely cover not only Mainland but also Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. ProKMT (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little misleading. I moved the title from "Conservatism in China" to "Conservatism in Greater China" in order to avoid editorial disputes with Guotaian and to compromise. So, that legacy should never be deleted, and if there's a problem, it should go back to "Conservatism in China". This article should never be deleted. ProKMT (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete
To be sure, Wikipedia is messy, but by far the most common treatment is the main article "China," with sections linked to main articles on the topic.
  • "Greater China" in the proposed article and template make no sense in relation to Confucius and the Han dynasty.
  • ProKMT wants to use "China' only and exclusively for the PRC, so creates this awkward category and suggests separate articles and templates for Taiwan and Hong Kong. It is more clear and better fitting in WIkipedia practice for PRC, Taiwan, and other area be sections of the main article.
  • The best model is in Religion in China, Military history of China, Economy of China, which all have the "main article" with sections linked to topical main articles. Literature in China redirects to Chinese literature and Chinese society redirects to Chinese culture, which both use this structure.
  • The article China includes the whole history of China, and, contrary to some statements, the portal does as well.
  • Both liberalism and conservatism in the PRC have roots in the past and connections abroad, so the article and the template need to show them.
  • Scholarship on these topics frequently crosses these boundaries.
That is, articles on X in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and so forth can be well covered under the umbrella without a new one.ch (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My real view: Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are all "China", but Guotaian claims "China" = "PRC", it is not my claims.
1) I created the "Conservatism in China" template and an article, and it covered conservatism in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan as well as the Mainland PRC.
2) In an article created and edited by Guotaian, he claimed that only the Mainland "PRC" since 1949 was "China" and removed cases from the Mainland ROC, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan before 1949. (Guotaian even put the image of the People's Republic of China in the template.)
3) So I'm on the same page as you (user ch). Since I opposed Guotaian's destructive editing, I restored the contents related to Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan in the "Conservatism in China" article. This led to an edit war with Guotaian, which led to a 24-hour block on both me and Guotaian.
My original position is that Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan's conservatism, as well as Mainland PRC must be included in the "Conservatism in China" article and template. The problem is that to solve this, I have to wage a 2nd edit war with Guotaian even at the risk of being blocked. So I was forced to change the title of the article, and this time I'm accusing someone else of making "devastating edit" to my user talk page. To be honest, I feel a very unfair. ProKMT (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guotaian stubbornly insists on in several articles and templates: Conservatism in China template should not attempt to cover all of Greater China, but should instead focus on conservatism within the PRC, while separate templates handle Hong Kong and Taiwan conservatism in their respective political contexts.[1] The fact that the PRC officially recognizes the ROC as "China" until 1949 does not mean that a modern template should treat pre-1949 liberalism and PRC-era liberalism as a single entity. ... Instead of forcing all periods of Chinese liberalism into a single PRC-centric template, a better approach would be to separate modern PRC liberalism from historical liberalism in China, ensuring that each is accurately represented[2]
Suggestions of excessive separation of templates (or articles), and attempts to limit 'China' to 'PRC' were all Guotaian's. When Guotaian made his destructive edits and destructive claims, almost no one stopped Guotaian, and I was the only one who undid Guotaian edits, and then I was unfairly blocked for starting an edit war. So, to avoid an edit war with Guotaian, I accepted Guotaian suggestions and edited the articles and templates, and now other users accuse me of destructive editing. Guotaian bears a large part of the responsibility for the current mess, and therefore I feel the situation is very unequal, unfair, and discriminatory. ProKMT (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Restore to "Conservatism in China" After reading the discussion below, I realize that I did not see that this article had been moved.ch (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone make it clear what has happened to these articles? The Conservatism in China disambiguation page was created in April 2024, and Conservatism in Greater China was converted from a redirect this month. The nomination states this new page is a POV fork, but a fork of the disambiguation page? Is there a third page somewhere around? CMD (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The first title of this article was "Conservatism in China". I covered the Mainland PRC and Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan in this article.
    2) A user named Guotaian consistently claimed "China" = "PRC" and deleted all phrases related to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan's conservatism from the article.
    3) I cancelled Guotaian's destructive editing, restoring phrases related to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan's conservatism in the article.
    4) Guotaian repeated his destructive editing.
    5) Me and Guotaian have repeated endless edit wars.
    6) Eventually, me and Guotaian were blocked 24 hours a day.
    7) While avoiding edit wars with Guotaian, I moved the title of the article to address Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan's conservatism in articles like Mainland PRC's conservatism: "Conservatism in China" → "Conservatism in Greater China"
    8) After moving the title of the article, "Conservatism in China" was changed to be 'redirect' to "Conservatism in China (disambiguation)".
    9) Miminity moved page "Conservatism in China (disambiguation)" to "Conservatism in China" without leaving a 'redirect' ProKMT (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to figure out the page histories, putting content to the side for the moment. Is your step 1 the creation of the Conservatism in China article this edit from 14 February? And before that creation, was there any actual article or just disambiguations/redirects? CMD (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Conservatism in China wasn't always a redirect because I remember watch listing it ages ago. But, yeah, there are gaps in the page history that are confusing. I went to WikiProject China where there was supposedly a thread about this page move but the thread was actually all about templates and nobody there seemed to have additional insight as to where a consensus for these actions was actually formed. It's honestly a big mess. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undo page move from Conservatism in China. This would be the simplest thing, and would carry out the needs of both sides of the argument.
ProKMT moved the page from "in China" to "in Greater China" here on February 21, with the note "I created this article to address the entire conservatism in Greater China, and I don't want to limit it to conservatism in the PRC."
The term "China" in Wikipedia usage most often includes history and in many cases overseas Chinese, such as Religion in China. This usage meets ProKMT's justifiable concern.
ProKMT has put in admirable and extensive work on the article, moving a draft into mainspace and removing the "in China" redirect here, with the message "I'm the only editor here."
I think we should congratulate ProKMT for taking the lead and laying the groundwork, as shown here, but call attention to the policy wp:own, which says "It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it." ch (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Guotaian's destructive editing. If the title of the article goes back to "Conservatism in China", Guotaian is a 100 percent chance that he will attempt to remove anything related to conservatism in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. If I try to stop Guotaian's destructive editing, it leads to 100% edit war. I didn't want to cause second edit war. ProKMT (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, next time, start an RfC then. For what it's worth I agree that Conservatism in China should address Conservatism in PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and any other territories that are de facto or de jure part of "China" and should not just be about conservatism in the PRC. But there's always another solution beyond edit wars. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, ProKMT, now I see your point -- I got lost in the back and forth.ch (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Revert page move. This is not only a fork of Conservatism in China, but, as editors have already pointed out, there are multiple, multiple POV issues. There is no widespread, secondary sources I have found at all that make it such that "Greater China" is the best appropriate term here. This is better off simply being merged back into the main page.  GuardianH  21:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and revert page move – Move this back to Conservatism in China and delete the pseudo-disambiguation page, which only lists one other article with a title close to this one, Conservatism in Hong Kong. The disruption of ProKMT and Guotaian edit-warring all over the political ideologies of China has to stop. Toadspike [Talk] 21:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As nominator I would be fine with this. I just want to get this mess cleaned up. Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert page move and delete the disambiguation page. If anyone thinks the page should be moved, they can start an RM as it's clearly not uncontroversial. A talk page discussion may be in order to decide what the scope of the article should be (and that discussion might lead to more clarity about what title makes sense). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mx.Granger, I agree. The scope of the article already covers the history of conservatism and included elements of greater China. ch (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservatism_in_Greater_China&oldid=1278259958"