Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Empire reform movement

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 redirect to Tongzhi Restoration. Edit history will remain; whether and what to merge is at editor decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Empire reform movement[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very much essay style, requiring a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopaedic. There are aspects of POVFORK as all elements of this article already exist in New Policies, Hundred Days' Reform and Self-Strengthening Movement. It is not clear if the three reforms presented actually constitute an ongoing reform movement over 50 years or are isolated reform attempts. Making the matter more complex, there is also Draft:Chinese Empire reform movement to consider which seems to have been initiated spanning around 2,000 years beginning 350BC. A search for in public sources does not seem to point to any specific "Chinese Empire reform movement" as common name for a reform or series of reform over a specific time frame. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The time period from the Opium War to the fall of the Qing Dynasty is a much-discussed topic in academic studies. The failure of the attempted reforms to stop the fall is also much discussed often as the "Qing Restoration" or Tongzhi Restoration. See The Fall of the Qing, 1840-1912 for an Oxford bibliography. This time period is also covered at a general level in Qing_dynasty#Self-strengthening_and_the_frustration_of_reforms and the following section. The nominated article at an initial glance appears to be well-referenced (though it does need editing for grammar and NPOV) and might be merged to Tongzhi Restoration or it might serve as a WP:SPINOUT for the reform section of the Qing Dynasty article. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article says that [c]ollectively the period of reforms has been referred to as the Qing Restoration or Tongzhi Restoration. "Qinq Restoration" is bolded but does not redirect anywhere and Tongzhi Restoration already has an article. Doesn't that make this a POV fork? If there is no satisfactory answer to that question then my recommendation is redirect. SpinningSpark 22:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the alternative name of Qing Restoration in case people felt renaming was appropriate and linked Tongzhi Restoration if merge was the consensus result. I don't see it as a POV fork of the latter, more as additional material that could be merged. I also did some grammar editing but didn't touch the content much. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means an expert on Chinese history - an interested individual at best. From what I read above and how the article has now been changed, it seems the title "Chinese Empire reform movement" does not really stand. So it seems the proposal is to call is Qing Restoration or Tongzhi Restoration. The latter already has an article. As a phrase "Qing Restoration" is not clear cut either as I see it from a brief review of some materials. this source puts it into the 1860's which would make is synonymous for the Self-Strengthening movement. This source puts the Qing Restoration to after the republican revolution, i.e. literally restoring the lost empire. Another source puts it into a similar context, as a movement lasting 12 days.

This aside, one might argue there could be an umbrella article about the various reform movements, however, I think that Qing dynasty and specifically the sections Qing dynasty#Self-strengthening and the frustration of reforms as well as Qing dynasty#Reform, revolution, collapse already do this and at the same time provide a lot more historical context and colour.

The existing articles about the three reforms also appear to give a lot more of a nuanced view and explore differing analysis of the events much better, especially on the Hundred Days' Reform and the Self-Strengthening Movement.

There may be cases where a WP:SPLIT can be useful, however I feel this one is a duplication of existing material that simplifies and omits, therefore has hallmarks of a POVFORK. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tongzhi Restoration Agree with assertion this appears to be an essay-style content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above comment. Deb (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article is providing an overview of a subject where New Policies (whose name needs changing), Hundred Days' Reform (which should be pruned, perhaps merging content here) and Self-Strengthening Movement can be "main" articles. Some of the other items in this article could do with a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Qing Restoration or merge to the currently lightly-referenced Tongzhi Restoration. Some of my reasoning is up page in comments but the gist is that an umbrella article for the late Qing reforms would serve a valuable explainer role in the encyclopedia. Whether we use John King Fairbank's terminology of "Qing Restoration" or go with the Chinese convention of naming the period for the Tongzhi Emperor is a little unclear to me given that the latter term is sometimes used to refer only to the specific reforms in his reign and might be seen as excluding the related one's such as those during the Guangxu Emperor's reign. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:COMMONNAME I'd be much more comfortable with Tongzhi Restoration than Qing Restoration. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Simonm223. Though I don't see a redirect. The title is far too broad. The Chinese empire has been around for thousands of years and effectively every emperor has done a "reform movement" - usually by purging the previous one and rewriting history. Whatever is appropriate should me merged into Tongzhi Restoration. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tongzhi Restoration: roughly the same topic. However, if the scope is going to include the Hundred Days' reform (which is after the Tongzhi reign), then Qing restoration may be a better title. -Zanhe (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (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.