View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy

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 delete‎. Despite the horrible walls of text, the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional monarchy

[edit]

[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 think that this is mostly a problem of Anglo-Saxon academical community that just don't have the same interest on this topyc unlike Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian or Polish academical communities (in which for me have been more easy to get sources on this topyc, even someones that consideres British Jacobitism as part of the movements that supports this model of government). Since the essence of this questions are about the method of making connections to categorize this in what is understanded as "Traditional Monarchy", I think that the problem is the necessity of wanting pure academic papers that say something about traditional morality or leaders specifically saying so outside of Carlism and Integralism, which yes they are (like Jacek Bartycel on Poland or Marquis de la Tour du Pin in France, along the influence of Francisco Elias de Tejada on Italian monarchical organisations like Editoriale Il Giglio), but in Anglo-Saxon community are very few outside of marginal circles like Jacobitean or Traditionalist Catholicism. But being demostrated that there are shared principles and fundaments that determinates their common model of Monarchy, I think that staying in something terminological would ignore the essential, perhaps it is because it has been see all these movements in the same way anyone would see an ideology, instead of seeing them as a particular Social Doctrine of Monarchy. The problem would be the necesity to see a system and a creator who gives it a name and people influenced by that creator citing his work, instead of seeing it as a series of principles shared by classical reactionaries' conception of Monarchy as based on a Perennial Tradition outside of ideological formulas (that's why the article should mantain it's name in my opinion, due to being reivindicated mostly by Traditionalist circles that tries to distinguish themself of other Monarchisms). Although, if I would consider a referent that inspire the rest, it should be Thomas Aquinas Iusnaturalism, as all of those movements that defends this "Traditional Monarchy" are inspired (if not totally based) by his proposal of Monarchy in De regno, ad regem Cypri, all of the academical authors that mentions this model of government are Thomists or are sympathisers to his political contributions (like Perennialists). Sr L (talk) 23:37, 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]
    • I suppose that the policy violation is about Wikipedia:Fringe theories. While it is true that the defense of the Traditional Monarchy is currently a marginal position, this is not sufficient reason to delete the article, since the reasons why Wikipedia avoids giving articles to marginal things is if the object of the marginal is due to having little academic support or no historical impact, but the defense of the "Traditional Monarchy" model (understood as a corporate, traditionalist, decentralized, religious and anti-modernist form of government) has been a very relevant real historical phenomenon, which in some countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy are a relevant case study on the historiography of revolution and counterrevolution.
      And specifically the Traditional Monarchy model, has support from serious and recognized academic authors cited in the article, such as Juan Vazquez de Mella, António Sardinha, Francisco Elias de Tejada (influential in Italy), Miguel Ayuso Torres, Rafael Gambra Ciudad, Jacek Bartycel (Polish), the Marquis de la Tour du Pin (French), etc. which haved a common understandment of a Christian or Perennial Social Order based in this type of Monarchy that isn't Constitutional nor Absolutist, trying to be an alternative superation of Feudalism.
      It cannot be placed in that category as could be the case, for example, of anarcho-national bolshevism (a political ideology that exists but with no systematization and no serious references in the academic world). By this logic there shouldn't be articles talking about anarcho-capitalism (and it's derivations) or fascism (and their movements), which are currently marginal positions. Sr L (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the idea is not that we don't cover complex topics at all, the idea is that we observe the WP:Verifiability policy while doing so. Blogs are not reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are sources that aren't just blogs, books that can be searched on Google Academy (although are more easy to get them on spanish, portuguese, french, italian or polish than in english). And the use of blogs related to official institutions can be tolerated by WP:Verifiability policy if "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals", and those blogs are administrated by carlists academics that can be verificated in the official page of Traditionalist Communion (2001). However, even in case those blogs are rejected, that doesn't meant that the article in his totallity isn't a valid one, due to having a serious academical fundament from Classic Reactionary thinkers and movements (which have a serious historical impact in some countries, like Spain or Portugal). Sr L (talk) 19:15, 28 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]
    • About António Sardinha, here's a portuguese source about his definition of "Traditional Monarchy" (specially from page 6) and mentioning analogies with the political theories of Joseph de Maistre, René de La Tour du Pin and Russian Whites https://www5.pucsp.br/cedic/semui/colecoes/colecao-acao-imperial-patrionovista/aipb-02/AIPB0017-compactado_2.pdf. Another one from University of Wrocław that it's in English and mentions this "Organic, Traditional Monarchy" on Portuguese Academic community from Right-wing circles. https://repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/dlibra/publication/146401/edition/136530/catholic-and-monarchist-nationalism-in-twentieth-century-portugal-bartyzel-jacek-orcid-0000-0003-1193-8515 This one in Spanish also mentions a comparative annalysis with his "Traditional Monarchy" and what carlist believes it's Traditional Monarchy (and also mentioning a more specific concept of "Traditionalist Monarchy", although with reserves of use due to wanting avoid ideologism). https://fundacioneliasdetejada.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/FYR23-P-57-67.pdf
      The 3 have in common that, while Traditional Monarchy as a model has been better developed by Iberian theorists of Counter-revolution traditionalism (and Sardinha being one if it's greatest a referent, along Juan Vazquez de Mella on Spian), it isn't exclusive of Iberian traditionalism, as there has been an accademic exchange with Legitimists and Maurrassisme of French reactionary community (and also of like most of royalist movements), that also have contributions to the concept and also used it in their context to support the restoration of a "True Repressantitve" Monarchy based in Estates of the realm Corporative representation instead of modern Parliamentarism (and rejecting also Absolutist centralisation at late Ancien régime). And then can be infered that this concept exists by it's own property, although can be mantained by renaming the article as just "Monarquia Tradicional", mantaining Spanish/Portuguese original name, in case Anglo-Saxon Community has terminological problems about this model of monarchical government. Sr L (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, and it seems a few other Wikipedians, find the issue with "traditional monarchy" isn't validity but instead whether notable sources use the term in the same way this article does. The category might be a valid and sound idea but Wikipedia is about notable ideas not valid ones. Without a reliable source telling us what traditional monarchy is and then identifying other ideologies, individuals or movements as "traditional monarchist", this article is clearly representing a fringe theory.
        The sources provided in the article and this article fail to fulfill this requirement. António Sardinha's work mentions traditional monarchy scarcely, and does spend anytime defining the term. The Wroclaw text uses it to describe a movements characteristics, instead of as a categorical label. Miguel Ayuso only uses the term when describing the formula for Vázquez de Mella's idea of a monarchy, instead of as a category or movement. Similar to what @Asqueladd said, a lot of synthesis is required to find any sort of continuity among these sources. They may talk about similar ideas and even use similar words, but they should tell us that they are connected. It is not Wikipedia's job to connect these dots, the sources should do that for us. If traditional monarchy was a notable idea, it should be easy to find sources that discuss its use clearly and various definitions. These sources do not. Clubspike2 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, there's 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] 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. It's the most near to fullfy that requeriment, although the focus of this book is mostly about history of these groups (and the common fights they have had against Political modernization) rather than a book of political philosophy or political sciences, but still offers insights into their common ideological foundations and political activities. However those five groups have always perceived themselves as defenders of a common type of monarchy, and even the current traditionalist communion of the Carlist pretender Don Sixto de Borbon has branches in Italy and Portugal-Brazil, as well as the legitimist groups related to Louis XX of France and Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria have a history of using that same term "monarchie traditionnelle" or "monarchia tradizionale" .
          There are books like the french one Henry V (duc de Bordeaux, comte de Chambord) ou la monarchie traditionnelle française à l'épreuve de la modernité post-révolutionnaire (1820-1872) or the italian one La legittimità di esercizio, fondamento dello Stato tradizionale which talks about this common aspects of a Traditional Monarchy that rejects the Modernization theory and emphasizes governance rooted in historical legitimacy, religious orthodoxy, and regional autonomy through a King commited to protect traditional social hierarchies, opposed to centralized state power in favour of a corporative representation against both absolutism and parlamentarism, and the preservation of regional laws and local customs of the peoples. If the problem is mostly about cathegorizing as supporters of "Tradiitional Monarchy" some Non-Catholic Monarchist or Reactionary monarchist movements not influenced directly by Iberian traditionalism (unlike the French, Italian and Polish ones), then that's why I propposed to that specific part of the article to be translated into a new page when is solved first the one of definition and fundaments (which in my opinion has been already resolved when I added a new paragraph and subtitle about Definition and Fundaments according to their academical referents, although I can accept corrections), so being borrowed that specific parts of supporters if the problem is there, not deleting all page which refers to a substantial and existent model of government with valid reason to be here due to it's historical impact. Sr L (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • About this source (page on WordPress), it's from an official Carlist institution, the Circulo Hispalense (now Circulo Elias de Tejada), which is an extension of actual Traditionalist Communion (2001) and can be verified in their official page: https://carlismo.es/presentacion-en-sevilla-del-circulo-hispalense-de-la-comunion-tradicionalista/. So, it can be considered a reliable source as it's related to an academical institution which officially defends this model of "Traditional Monarchy", and being the article about explaining that model. The same institution has made collaboration with other "Anti-Liberal" Monarchist movements, and that's a big consideration about why this "Traditional Monarchy" is the same Monarchical model of government defended by reactionary movements with similar "Counter-Revolution" political philosophy (like jacobites, french legitimists, miguelists, habsburg loyalists, white tsarists, etc) against Constitutional Monarchy and Absolute Monarchy at the same time.
      While my intention wasn't arguing, just expressing the official fundaments of the "Traditional Monarchy", I'm not against to eliminate those paragraphs if they're syntethised in a more accurate way for Wikipedia standard. Although, about that conclussions about Westphalian system as catalyst of Absolutist Monarchies, those aren't exclussive of Traditionalist Monarchists thinkers but are a greater historiographical debate among Academy and have been supported by non-related authors like André de Muralt (but due to not being this article just about historical science, but mainly political science, I avoided to mention the other perspectives and mantaining the focus on the fundaments of Traditional Monarchy, so just mentioning the historiographical perspective that it's assumed by these academics about why Traditional Monarchy is different of Absolutist Monarchy or Modern Sovereign state). So, again, you can change the redaction if that's the problem (or at least giving an advice cartel to correct it in the near future), not borrowing all the page.
      Also I was considering, about resolving the issue concerning the excessive amount of sources, to create another article about "Movements that defends Traditional Monarchy per country", as most of those sources are related to the part of "Supporters of Traditional Monarchy". Sr L (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That it's connected to some institution doesn't make it a reliable source. I've indicated briefly why I think it's problematic, and I could go on--I'll do that if it ever comes up on WP:RSN or a talk page discussion, where I'll argue that citing Aquinas in a page like that is a bad sign, not a good one. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, doesn't make it *necessarly* a reliable source, but can be if some conditions are done (as I tried to just quote blogs in which there are official authorities and academics from this monarchical circles, not a random guy who is fan of this type of monarchy without guarantee of objectivity).
        However, if the problem is specifically the sources from blog, then erase them and only the sources that are purely books by academic authors remain (such as Francisco Elías de Tejada, from whom the author of this blog is inspired to summarize that analysis of the Modern State) and analysis of books by said academic authors that come from non-blog portals such as Dialnet, Jstor or others (as this are the most majoritarian sources before the part of "Supporters of Traditional Monarchy") Sr L (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an essay full of original research, underpinned by shoddy sources and heavy synthesis conveying a set of fringe views also relying on extrapolating from Spanish traditionalist voices to elsewhere on feeble grounds. Whatever has been going on in the monarchist camps in terms of innovations of their political philosophy in recent times, it should be dealt with in monarchism, paying attention to due attribution and weight, instead of this essay that looks as if someone wanted to sell tradcaths an ethereal mode of state structure.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "full of original research" the sources are there about the principles of Traditional Monarchy according to serious authors in academy from Carlist, Miguelists, French Legitimists, Catholic Integralist (Thomist), etc of reactionary circles, which during XIX and Early XX Century were very relevant historically (like the Spanish Civil Wars). So their actual condition of being marginal views can't be a justification of being a case of a fringe theory. Sr L (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that such a distinction given to a "traditional monarchy" is valid, although the article has several editorial errors and things that should be improved to avoid more confusion, but it should be understood that the traditional monarchy does not refer to a system or schematization of a type of government, if it is not a term that seeks to encompass monarchies that were governed by certain principles shared by the medieval era, as mentioned above, based on the political form of Thomism and political Augustinianism, all those monarchies that in their proper context sought more or less to replicate or be governed by such principles fall into the term of traditional monarchy, if one seeks information on such movements cited in the article it is normal that not define themselves as a traditional monarchy, but they do identify with the principles presented, so it seems useful to me to have an article that encompasses such monarchies that Until the modern age they sought to materialize such principles. Moongrief (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "keep" Moongrief (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    keep I think the article could be improved in several aspects, the traditional monarchy can be a valid concept if we consider what I already explained in my initial comment, this explains why these monarchies in practice have had differences, since each one is adapted to the situation of each place where it happened, but we can see a fairly unified idea of ​​its fundamental political principles, which were the Thomist-Augustinian philosophy, which was presented as a continuation of Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy in the Christian context, perceived as an eternal truth.
    It seems to me a nominal problem, to criticize it because such monarchies have not seen themselves with the name of "traditional monarchies" of course that such a name was given later but the distinctive principles are there, although not as a system Moongrief (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear a few more assessments of this article. I typically ask for a source analysis at this point but with 284 footnotes, that's not a realistic ask. I will say, User:Sr L, you have made your opinion known (though without stating a bolded vote) so please do not continue to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion and respond to every comment that is made. That approach almost always backfires. And if there is a sensible ATD, like a Merge, Redirect or Rename solution, please bring that up soon. This discussion can be closed at any point that a closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — weak — I don't deny that this article has issues with prose. Broadly, it simply reads like an essay and — despite it seemingly being well-sourced — I am sure I am seeing some WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That said, I feel it is important to note that this is a term that is again — seemingly — utilized primarily in Spain and Portugal, or at least in the Hispanophone world. So, right there, is a possible issue; It doesn't fully-clarify this in the lead. Secondly, definitely some WP:SIZE and definitely some WP:CANYOUREADTHIS issues. Additionally, I'm not sure the title is correct, despite it being a literal translation from Spanish: monarquía tradicional or Portuguese: monarquia tradicional. A more appropriate semantic translation might possibly be "traditionalist monarchism" or even "conservative monarchism," though I'm getting a bit WP:OR-ish with the latter. Anyways, before I get myself into CANYOUREADTHIS-territory, I'd just like to say I believe this article can be salvaged. I am also willing to work on it myself. That said, Clubspike2, if nothing changes in the coming months, I would give you strong support for a deletion.MWFwiki (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for supporting the Keep position. I'm also a supporter of the idea that in the last case it is better to change the name of the article + correct the wording as a better intervention (I think I went too far in explaining the reasons for these authors, which creates a misunderstanding of trying to be an argumentative article). There's too much information that can't be lost due to errors that can be corrected just by a better redaction or solving first a therminological issue.
    Althoguh I don't think that this concept is primarly on Iberian world, as I've seen that they use it directly on French, Italian and Polish sources as well as in their official monarchical groups (about this, it's also used on Anglophone community, but on marginal Jacobites and Traditional catholics groups, and so on in marginal reactionary groups influenced by the "Counter-Revolutionary School" like the Habsburg loyalists or White Russians circles). However I can agree that Iberian monarchical theorist have been the ones who most developed the concept.
    I'm very sure that in case is problematical "Traditional Monarchy", then "Traditionalist Monarchism" can be a better replacement, as all this groups have in common a series of principles from classical Counter-revolution/Reactionary movement (like Traditionalist conservatism on Anglo-World), although with variations in praxis according to their particular regional context (as a consequence of the regionalist principle they defend, Universalism through Particular). However the only problem I would find with that name is the danger that what is actually an aticle describing a system and model of government that developed a doctrine a posteriori, becomes an article on ideology in the modern and apriorist abstract sense that all these groups reject due to using schemes of medieval and classical philosophy. This could generate misunderstandings for future editors of the article unless some clarification is made at the beginning of the article renamed in that name. Sr L (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that, despite the problems regarding terminology and sources, the article deserves to be kept.
The idea of ​​a sacred monarchy based on a cosmology that is expressed in the West especially in medieval Christianity, is defended by authors outside the iberian monarchist tradition. For example, the perennialist tradition such as Rene Guenon ("Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power") or Jean Hani ("Sacred Royalty") expose the common principles behind the traditional monarchies of the West, as opposed to the absolutist monarchies of Protestant influence: subordination of temporal power to spiritual authority, caste system (priests, warriors, workers), morality based on natural law, decentralized administration.
Julius Evola's political theory can also be included in this category, although he disagreed on the supremacy of spiritual authority, he was later corrected by the Spanish monarchist Elías de Tejada. Tomidcm (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as to retention or otherwise, however it seems excessively long, uses excessive linking and capitalization and can be hard to read and understand. Many tenets of the style manual seem not to have been considered. Neils51 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2025 (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.