| Revision as of 07:21, 23 September 2024 editGuotaian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,525 edits →Title: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:22, 23 September 2024 edit undoGuotaian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,525 editsm Guotaian moved page Template talk:Neoconservatism in China to Template talk:Neoauthoritarianism in China over redirectNext edit → |
| (No difference) | |
Revision as of 07:22, 23 September 2024
Title
- Neoconservatism in China
- Neoauthoritarianism in China
There's a 'move' war going on about which of these two is more appropriate for the title. Let's discuss it here.
I prefer "Neoconservatism". The reason is that I can clearly convey to my readers that this is a conservative ideology, and the moderate/liberal-conservatives in Hong Kong or Macau are less authoritarian. Above all, when arranging "Ideologies," if the title is "Neoauthoritarianism," what can simply be shortened to Authoritarian, Cultural, Social, and Ultra should be written as Authoritarian conservatism, Cultural conservatism, Social conservatism and Ultraconservatism. Because unfamiliar readers may not be able to grasp whether "Neoauthoritarianism" is conservative. ProKMT (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Neoauthoritarianism in China is more fitting because it emphasizes centralized authority, which better describes China's political structure. The term "Neoconservatism" might suggest a balance with liberal values, which doesn't fully capture the importance of authority in China's context. The link also redirects to neoauthoritarianism article not neoconservatism. Since the ideology's name in the article is widely agreed as neoauthoritarianism, the template should mirror the main article. If not, it would confuse readers.
- Guotaian (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)