Talk:Neoauthoritarianism (China)

References failed verification

Probably due to changes in google books, one of my sources has failed verification, Beijing 1989. However, I have access to this book. I can go through the book front to back and expand on the subject, but it probably won't happen for awhile, I am working on my main page, Chinese Legalism, and secondly Ding Richan. I do still intend to improve it within the next year.FourLights (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Although I am mainly working on the Chinese Legalism page, I came back and pointed the reference to a correct page number for Wu Jixiang's theory. When I originally wrote it I relied on google books. The google book does not have page numbers for whatever reason, and the link became incorrect.FourLights (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources Reviewed (self-note)

I'm checking sources to see that nothings gotten mixed up.FourLights (talk) Need to read https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/introduction-the-singapore-model-and-chinas-neoauthoritarian-dream/2ED7A22E42E1D9E2CA3A116047C8D58D/core-reader

Made use of Media, Market, and Democracy in China.
Re-checking Conservative Thought in Contemporary China for material.
Writing material using source Sirens of the Strongman.
Writing material using source Development and democracyFourLights (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC) I will try and prioritize working on this this coming month.FourLights (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal July 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge New Conservatism (China) into Neoauthoritarianism (China) , the former being a transient name for the movement from the early 1990s to around 2008. Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

---

I'd like to propose merging New Conservatism (China) into this article and expanding its scope to the current day. These concepts are not exactly the same, but are so closely related that it's hard to justify two distinct articles: "New Conservatism" was a rebranding of the Southern (Shanghai) School of neoauthoritarianism beginning around the end of the 80s, and after the rival Northern (Beijing) School of neoauthoritarianism was suppressed post-1989, neoauthoritarianism and New Conservatism became effectively identical. This history is not currently described in this article, but can be reviewed on pp. 53–4 of Van Dongen's 2019 monograph on Chinese ideology post-89 (and in the Fewsmith 1995 article cited at New Conservatism (China)).

In their 2018 academic survey (open access) of current Chinese political theory, Cheek et al. mention neo-conservatism and neo-authoritarianism as identical: "Initial consultations with Chinese colleagues have emphasized two other trends of sichao: neo-authoritarianism (or new conservatism) ...". Another mention in a 2019 source similarly cites them together. As far as the usage in China itself goes, Baike Baidu's article on neoauthoritarianism (while not an RS in itself) confirms the view of recent English sources, stating 在九十年代以后，新权威主义在新的背景、新的问题下继续发展 ("neoauthoritarianism continues to develop under new conditions and new problems after the 90s").

For the mechanics of the merger, I think the best option would be to preserve FourLights's good work here, while incorporating the small amount of info (mostly by me) at New Conservatism (China) into the lede and in a new section on later developments (which doesn't need to be too long as neoauthoritarianism/neoconservatism is far less prominent as an explicit academic current than it was in the 80s and 90s). Also pinging @Roadrunner and The Four Deuces as significant contributors at New Conservatism (China). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't look at this article for a long time and have no objections. As I remember, the term was translated into English both as neo-conservatism and new conservatism. Since the first phrase has come to refer to a specific school, I recommended using the second to avoid confusion. TFD (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My article is expansive. what I could do is expand the Neo conservatism article, but I don't know how you would put them together as is.FourLights (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@FourLights: Not quite expansive enough, since it doesn't cover neoauthoritarianism's development post–early 1990s—which it would do if the articles were merged! I described how that merge could take place above (incorporate detail into new section on post-90s developments and a few sentences in the lede). The term "neoconservatism" is no longer widely used for this current in its contemporary form either in Chinese or English literature, so it should be recognized as a temporary rebranding of neoauthoritarianism per the sources I listed above and redirected here. Note the biography of Xiao Gongqin, who invented the term "neoconservatism", at CCR does not even mention it now and describes him as a "leading scholar of neoauthoritarianism" ([1]). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I just checked through the references here, and at the moment only one of them (He Li, ref 2) is more recent than 2008. He is, unsurprisingly, also the one that clarifies that neoauthoritarianism is a contemporary current that has "resurfaced since Xi Jinping" became leader (p. 31), not a dead one from the 80s–90s, and also clarifies that neoconservatism is a rebranding of it (p. 38). So this looks like it's potentially just a problem stemming from outdated sources. [Edit: Not even that, apparently, since after checking Chinese Economic Development by Bramall he also discusses neoauthoritarianism continuing after 1997 [2].] —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

When I say my article is expansive, I mean that it was exhaustively sourced using all material available to me, unless I need to check for university material, or order a book that wasn't available on google books. If I don't talk about neoconservativism enough it's because it wasn't the search term I used. I can go ahead and research Chinese neoconservativism when I have the time, I just have a little math I need to do.FourLights (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@FourLights: I've already listed some additional material above and in the sources of New Conservatism (China), notably the very recent 2019 Els van Dongen book which discusses this specific subject in a lot of detail. If you have no disagreement in principle then I'm happy to undertake the merge myself, including reviewing the existing material in this article and adding the additional content. Since I have academic access credentials I can add details on journal articles as needed, though that's a separate issue. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no specific objection but I don't know enough on the subjective personally to approve you myself. I was looking at the book mentioned as we speak. I of course appreciate any assistance.FourLights (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I stopped by the library today and happened to pick up on an article by Barry Sautman. I'll probably be incorporating material from this before I merge the articles, but you can expect it to happen.FourLights (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@FourLights: Any insights from the book relevant to the merge? Klbrain (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I will try and prioritize working on this this coming month.FourLights (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is not encyclopedic and sounds like an academic/journal article. The main issue is that the language and wording of the article provokes questions from the readers, rather than giving factual statements.

Examples:

• Uncertainty and challenging the premise: "Neoauthoritarianism is a political thought in the People's Republic of China, if not of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) itself ..."
• More uncertainty: "Though apparently taking a backseat to market socialism ..."

CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

My background in doing this consists of a large amount of subject reading, having had a decent high school teacher, a few English classes in college, some foolish initial practice, and a lot of writing and editing of the Chinese Legalism page. I appreciate that you consider the article to be of academic quality.

Based on your feedback, I've consolidated relevant material into its own section. I consider it a reasonable point, and it makes sense organizationally. Feel free to continue criticism and recommendations.

However, while I will be reviewing the article, including in tone, and you can suggest information and guidelines on writing a more "encyclopedic" article, the material itself seems appropriate enough to me, and I don't have anything to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia articles are still scholarly based as far as I know, and the guidelines encourage a technical spirit, not a reductionist one.

The subject is, itself, a current of thought relating with a government entity perhaps lacking complete transparency, and judgements regarding its apparent course, and not simply an objective subject. If the article reflects this, it's to some extent because the sources do, though I can try to improve my style of writing.

I don't see that an "unbiased" if not complete article wouldn't include a presentation on views on the subject, of which mine were, at time of writing, a complete summary report from the known material (which was also summistic). If such material is indeed unfitting, feel free to report back with the relevant guidelines.FourLights (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tone 2

I'm probably a little more experienced now and can try to improve the tone writing of the article.FourLights (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I'm going to make mention of citations that violate WP:SYNTH and explain my reasoning here.

1. Zheng, Yongnian (Summer 1994). "Development and Democracy: Are They Compatible in China?". - Being used to establish that neoauthoritarianism and neoconservativism are the same ideology under different names. Does not do that; fails verification.
2. Chris Bramall (2008), p. 328-239, 474-475. Chinese Economic Development. - Pages 474-475 don't mention neoconservativism at all. Pages 328 to 239 makes no sense as a citation. I could not verify from Google Books that there's any mention of neoconservativism.
3. Yuezhi Zhao (March 20, 2008). Communication in China: Political Economy, Power, and Conflict. This does describe neoauthoritarianism as having right-wing components but the sentence immediately before the pull quote is relevant: "With the party's de facto abandonment of this dual discourse, jingoistic anti-U.S. and anti-Japanese sentiments became dominant in the mid1990s, expressed most evidently in the 1996 best seller China Can Say No (Zhongguo keyi shuobu). Instead of championing th eprinciples of global justice and equality, this nationalism, consistent with the "de-ieologized paradigm," is primarily concerned with Cihnese national sovereignty and "China's acquisition of overseas markets, resources and even survival space" in the course of the country's national development. As such, it is also consistent with the right-wing ideology of neo-authoritarianism, limiting itself to championing China's national self-interest in a neoliberal global order." This is far narrower in scope, being a specific comment on a specific book and on the political climate of the mid-1990s to use about a political ideology that this article synthetically says continues to this day.
4. Christer Pursiainen (September 10, 2012). At the Crossroads of Post-Communist Modernisation: Russia and China in Comparative Perspective. - Everything I found on this combination of title and author points to a 2001 paper by Pursainen and Linda Jakobson. It is 31 pages long and does not have a page 151 (per the cite). The only reference of right-wing in the paper by this title is on page 13-14 where it says " The political elite soon divided into four main factions - orthodox Marxists, Gorbachevian centrists, more radical ‘democrats’, and right-wing nationalists – each with a different view of how to proceed. In the end, after August 1991, the ‘democrats’ won the battle, establishing a new Russian Federation after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical entity." Which is about Russia, not China at all. Fails verification.
5. Economic and Political Weekly: Volume 41. Sameeksha Trust. June 2006. p. 2212. -Incomplete citation, failed verification. Journal is mostly about Indian politics and economics.
6. Sautman, Barry (1992). "Sirens of the Strongman: Neo-Authoritarianism in Recent Chinese Political Theory" - Being used to support the opposite of what it says since, on page one, Sautman says that debates about neo-authoritarianism were "waged without reference to Marxism by either proponents or opponents." Sautman suggests that neo-authoritarianism was quashed after the Tiananmen Square incident and was, in 1992 when he wrote this, principally discussed among exiled intellectuals.
7. "Rong Jian 荣剑 | The China Story". WP:TERTIARY applies here. Does not mention liberal democracy at all and has nothing to say about anything "gaining credence" - entirely baffling use of this citation which, notwithstanding it being a tertiary source might be a usable one, but it seems like it was randomly inserted halfway through a sentence without any reason.
8. Zheng, Yongnian (Summer 1994). "Development and Democracy: Are They Compatible in China?". - second use, this time to claim that "the concept of liberal democracy led to intense debate between democratic advocates and neoauthoritarians" in synthesis with the tertiary source immediately above. Doesn't appear to contain the words "liberal democracy" together. Also this source is from 1994.
9. This is actually a good source for discussing the transition from neoauthoritarianism to neoconservativism but it does treat these two ideologies as distinct. Furthermore it's another example of baffling placement of a citation as it's being used to cite "prior to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre." Which is not a segment which should require a citation in a lede at all since it's literally half a sentence.
10. Sautman, Barry (1992). "Sirens of the Strongman: Neo-Authoritarianism in Recent Chinese Political Theory" - to cite the statement " It is discussed as an alternative to the implementation of liberal democracy, similar to the strengthened leadership of Soviet general secretary Leonid Brezhnev and the early years of Mikhail Gorbachev" - Actually this one is unique in that it is the first citation in the lede that is being used correctly. This is the first verifiable citation in the lede.
11. Moody, Peter R. (2007). Conservative Thought in Contemporary China. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-2046-0. - Also being used correctly.
12. "Rong Jian 荣剑 | The China Story". - WP:TERTIARY again. Otherwise fine.
13. Moody, Peter R. (2007). Conservative Thought in Contemporary China. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-2046-0. - Also being used correctly. - Again used correctly.
14. "Rong Jian 荣剑 | The China Story". - WP:TERTIARY again. And the thing it's cited for is that Deng compared neoauthoritarianism to his own ideology but a comparison isn't the same as an equivalency. "Cola is not the same as milk" is a comparison.

I never said otherwise, personally.FourLights (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just the lede. In it we find that almost all the citations, particularly in the first two paragraphs, are being misused. This is why I'm saying we need WP:TNT this is a mess from top to bottom. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one who decided to merge them, I wrote the earlier Neoauthoritarianism article and probably some tidying and development after they were merged. If you're looking for a statement that the one became the other in the lede, you may be looking in the wrong place. The article has been modified a lot since I've been here. Without checking I don't recall if I wrote this statement into the lede, but I certainly recall no intention on my part to demonstrate it, because it was never my project to demonstrate it. That's not where I comment on it. All this intermediating editing aside, I originally reported what my reading said, which was that "Neoauthoritarianism became a kind of neoconservativism", which may be still be in the article. I made no attempt to demonstrate it in the lede or otherwise because didn't know it needed demonstrating. I just reported what my sourcing said later in the article. You might find a source somewhere else in the article connected to a statement, but you'd find no attempt on my part to prove it in the lede, because I never made any such attempt.FourLights (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)