This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ProKMT (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 23 September 2024 (ProKMT moved page Template talk:Neoauthoritarianism in China to Template talk:Neoconservatism in China over redirect: Please, don't move the title anymore, persuade other users on talk page. Currently, there is only one opposition to the "neo-conservative" title.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:18, 23 September 2024 by ProKMT (talk | contribs) (ProKMT moved page Template talk:Neoauthoritarianism in China to Template talk:Neoconservatism in China over redirect: Please, don't move the title anymore, persuade other users on talk page. Currently, there is only one opposition to the "neo-conservative" title.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)