I have reviewed the content added to Nanjing Decade, however, it is still not convicing:
- Mapping Conservatism of the Republican Era: Genesis and Typologies does not say that the period itself is conservative, rather, it says: "But the Golden Decade was also marked by conflict and fragility. Intellectuals’ disenchantment with the nation's experimentation with republicanism... It is in this context that the last type of conservatism in the Republican era emerged: authoritarian conservatism." It does not say that the period itself is generated by conservatism or is viewed as conservatism.
- China's Conservative Revolution: The Quest for a New Order, 1927–1949 does not mention the period itself is conservative, too. Rather, in page 86, it says "Having separated scouting from its colonial history, GMD affiliates claimed the movement as their own. Anticipating developments in the Nanjing Decade, scout training in Guangdong was rebranded as a tool for putting into practice Sun’s proclivity for guided action over political consciousness in working with the populace, a theory central to Dai Jitao’s formulation of GMD vanguardism". Still no mention about conservative.
- The source from proquest does mention about conservatism during Nanjing Decade, in page 19 it says "More recent works have, from multiple angles, shown that far from being a guileless imitator of fascism so that it could maintain its despotic elite control over an estranged populace, practices and agendas associated with radical conservative politics were engrained in the party across factional divides. They informed party-state behaviors in debates on economic development, in the administration of justice, and in the creation of a new national culture during the Nanjing Decade (1927-1937) when the GMD maintained an increasingly tight grip on its relatively urbanized and economically advanced stronghold in the southeastern provinces." However, the question is, is it sufficient to say the decade itself is conservative, or just the KMT? I prefer the latter one and I really do not know why you think the previous one applies.
ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 20:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you do not want the statement that "the period is conservative" then you can change it to "it was a period dominated by the conservative KMT's one-party state" or whatever; this does not change the applicability of [[Category:Conservatism in China]] in this article.
- Also regarding Baohuang Hui, it is true that this organization was not "ultraconservative" as Ci Xi's faction but as a royalist organization it is always conservative, just being more "constitutional" or "liberal", but no matter how constitutional and liberal the present-day UK is, Tory is till "conservative" for its royalist, monarchist stance, not to mention the fact that what Baohuang Hui aimed to preserved was much more autocratic, much less constitutional that present-day UK monarchy. Lytstoriock (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- For the Nanjing Decade part, I think I still need to figure out what some other sources argue. For the "Society to Protect the Emperor of the Great Qing" part, well, it might be the case and it is generally the case, but still I prefer a dozen of sources, as it is an innate feature of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:BURDEN. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 21:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)