Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traditional monarchy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Traditional monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Traditional monarchy, as a distinct system of governance, ideology or political affiliation is not widely used enough to be considered WP:NOTE. There was obviously a lot of work put into this article, and I can sympathise with how awful it must feel to see it nominated for deletion. However, this topic has a lot of redundancy and little notability as a distinct subject.

A lot of the alleged traditional monarchists in this article never use the label. Charles A. Coulombe has 0 mentions outside of Wikipedia of being a traditional monarchist. Coulombe is both a traditionalist and a monarchist, but he never uses the term traditional monarchist. Even Rafael Gambra Ciudad, who has the most extensive mentions of Monarquía tradicional, has zero sources describing him as a traditional monarchist (that I can find). Several of the quotes throughout this article discuss monarchism but do not mention traditionalism. The label of a traditional monarchist is also frequently applied to movements that do not describe themselves as traditional monarchists. A lot of the connections to traditional monarchism seem to be made by the editor, rather than the sources.

A brief survey of the academia on traditional monarchy shows that it is rarely mentioned and when it is it is not described as a distinct ideology from traditionalism or monarchism but a combination of both. This leads to many of the sources used by this article not mentioning the term traditional monarchy.

I am aware that this article relies on a lot of Spanish sources, something I'm by no means fluent in, so I could have totally missed something big. However, even with Google Translate and searching basic Spanish terms, almost nothing comes up.

At the end of the day, this article reads more like an article about monarchism and would have substantially fewer issues if it were.}} Clubspike2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Most of the article's content has been added by one user, Sr L, since 24 November. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been the most interested in develop the article, there were others that preceded me and even are equivalent of this articles in other wikipedias. Sr L (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I feel that it is very picky to focus on a largely nominal and terminological issue to propose deleting the page. For those, I think it would be better to rename the article as "Integral Monarchy" (used in Tsarist circles), "Corporate Monarchy" (used in Habsburg loyalist circles), "Classical Monarchy" (used in some academic circles), "Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism" (which could be the most formalist possible name for Wikipedia), etc. of alternative names that exist for this type of monarchy that the article describes according to what various legitimist and counterrevolutionary groups, that are anti-liberal and anti-absolutist alike, adhere to.
Secondly, I must mention that the concept of "Traditional Monarchy", according to the definition that it adheres to on a corporate and aristocratic form of government according to medieval political philosophy or "scholasticism" (such as the Thomistic philosophy of law and Augustinian political theology in the Christian context, which also develop Aristotelian and Platonic political philosophy, which in turn its followers admit to having conclusions similar or equal to those of other traditional philosophies that are grouped as "non-modernist" such as Confucianism or Vedism), allows that naturally the Iberian concept of "Traditional Monarchy" can also refer to such forms of monarchical government that maintain similar qualities in reaction to the Political Modernization initiated by the Secular Humanism of the Renaissance and consolidated with the Age of Enlightenment, which is what all these "classical reactionary" groups have in common, which have brotherly relations with the Carlist and Integrist groups, which are the ones that most allege the concept (despite that even italian, french and polish monarchical groups uses the concept and I referenced some of those). There is even an entire philosophical school that defends this specific form of "pre-modern Monarchy" according to the characteristics of a perennial tradition (Perennialist School, although they are obviously not the only defenders of this type of government and in any case they have an emphasis on questions of mysticism and metaphysics rather than politics)
Finally, it can be empirically verified, after reviewing the sources of the article (specifically looking for the statutes and declaration of principles of the monarchical groups mentioned), that all these groups that perceive themselves as "authentic reactionaries" come to defend a form of government that is essentially common, despite the specific name they give it. There is even a book called "The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera)" that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups [Spanish Carlism, Portuguese Miguelism, French Legitimist Royalism, British Jacobitism, Italian Neo-Bourbonism, Catholic Integralism] along with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. From this we can conclude that all these legitimist groups, which have historically collaborated with each other (like the White Russian movement associating with the Carlists in anti-communist alliances during the interwar period, the Polish monarchists of the magazine Rojalisci-pro Patria having integrists in their ranks and basing themselves on Carlism, the intellectual collaborations between the legitimists of the houses of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine, etc.) consider themselves to defend what the Iberian traditionalists understand as "Traditional Monarchy" and which perhaps other traditionalisms or "classical conservatives" names in a different way. Which, again, would be a more nominal and terminological question (which could be resolved by renaming the article, although I personally would not suggest it), not a proof of the insubstantiality or inaccuracy of the article. Sr L (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While renaming the article would solve some issues, I believe that it does not fix the notability of this concept. When searching on both Google and Google Scholar, the terms Integral Monarchy, Corporate Monarchy, Traditional Monarchy, Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism and Classical Monarchy are either scarcely used or scarcely used in the way this article uses the term. These ideologies may all have common beliefs and roots, but without a widely recognized term grouping these ideologies together this bars on being original research.
My main concern is not that the groups categorized under Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism, or any synonymous terms, are not related but that the notion of categorizing them this way is not notable enough to be its own article. Clubspike2 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed this by seeing this edit, which is adding a bunch of text referenced to a glaringly unreliable source, some NGO that promotes some oddball fringe views. If this is the standard for the rest of the text, then yes, it should absolutely be deleted because this is a policy violation. --Joy (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like most such hobby horses, it's a curious and overwhelmingly excessive mix of original research and synthesis. I'm not going through this entire thing, and one thing must suffice, for now: this source, a page on WordPress that claims to cover the genesis of the "modern state" in a couple paragraphs, and it is used to verify (pardon me for the long quotes):

    The first attempts to develop organized traditionalist monarchists movements appeared in Spain and Portugal during the context of Carlist Wars and Liberal Wars, in which Carlists and Miguelists launched proclaims (like Manifiest of the Persians) that later defined a series of political doctrines to reject the paradigms of liberal revolutions (as Liberalism was perceived as a political philosophy contrary to a Christian social order), but also trying to reject the monarchical absolutism that caused the perceived social decline of Christendom by having harmed the "Intermediate Bodies" (popular institutions of the plebeians, like Municipalities, Guilds, Corporations, Parliaments, etc. that were guarantors of Class collaboration), local Customary Law (guarantors of Regional Autonomies and Subsidiarity) and the social role of the clergy (the autonomy of the church from the state, guarantors of Natural law) in the name of erroneous ideological assumptions of Modern Philosophy (like Anthropocentrism, Nominalist anti-Metaphysical Realism, Immanentism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Secular humanism, Regalism, Enlightened absolutism, etc.) to achieve apparently more "efficiency" and "rationality" in governments that instead led to the Ancien régime crisis

    and

    Then it would be stablished the absolutist model of monarchy during the Protestant reformation and normalized in Europe by the Westphalian system, in which there would be attacks against the political power of the Social Corporations (that were mostly in good convivence until the European wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics, along the wars of French system of Alliances based on Raison d' etat instead of Universitas Christiana) in the name of Political stability. And finally it would be a popular political system among Western intellectuals (specially followers of Modern philosophy) during XVI to XVIII century, like Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius or Thomas Hobbes.

    Note how careless the editing and how argumentative the writing is in those paragraphs, sweeping through history with the broadest possible brush. This is how we get 300k of excessive (and excessively overlinked, another hallmark of such writing) and overformatted (another hallmark) writing. No, burn it. This is an essay. It is possible that somewhere in here is a concept worth noting, but even the lead doesn't make that clear. Delete. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I was considering, after looking at the history, to advocate a return to this version, but that is also problematic, because both versions take this concept to be something specific to the Iberian situation, and a quick search through JSTOR shows that this is unwarranted: the term "traditional monarchy" is simply a word to denote traditional monarchy, nor does anything in the definition by António Sardinha cited in the earlier version point at something specific, except maybe for the word "Catholic". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Traditional_monarchy&oldid=1265615811"