Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-monarchism

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-monarchism

Does not cite any sources. Seems non-notable and/or made up. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, as I'm the nominator. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 08:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This sounds like a coherent (albeit offbeat) concept, and it wouldn't matter that the label is being retrospectively attached to people and movements who hadn't coined the pharse. However, google seems to throw up very little substantive on the concept, so I vote at delete as a probable neologism, without any sources. --BrownHairedGirl 09:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does seem coherent, but I don't think it's a term that is ever really used. I've heard this idea used by anarcho-primitivists to a slight degree, but I've never heard them call it this. I'd say it's a neologism too. The Ungovernable Force 09:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; although there are a several Google results, they don't seem to match each other or the article, and would generally seem to support the idea that this is just a term a lot of people have come up with seperately because it sounded so silly. With no meaningful usage of the term, there's no encyclopedia article to write about it. --Aquillion 09:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As of a day or two ago I thought the term merely was a joke. Then someone linked to this page on one of the other anarchism related pages. Others who had used it thought it was just a joke too and had no idea we had an article with this name. The Ungovernable Force 09:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur has been described as a "Monarcho-Anarchist," Dali refered to himself as "anarcho-monarchist." Clearly one can at least make a stub out of this. Intangible 09:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: if you are right, that sounds to me like an argument for inclusion on a dictionary, not as a suvject for an encyclopedic aricle. --BrownHairedGirl 11:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I linked to the Wayne John Sturgeon article, but I can't find any further references to this term, so the article currently fails WP:OR. On the same grounds (one article from a journalist for Alternative Green) it fails WP:NEO. If Intangible can cite references for the Dali and Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur statements though, I'd be on the way to changing my mind. Yomangani 11:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete because I can't find much information about it. Like Yomangani, I would change my mind if I saw some references. Lurker ^talk 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was one of the people who originally suggested the article be deleted, because at the time I assumed the article creator had taken the term from my own, joking, off-the-cuff use in the anarchism template talk pages. However, after digging around a bit, it looks like similar terms have been used in print at least twice. I suspect that it’s such a temptingly paradoxical concept that people keep coining it over and over again. I listed the five usages I’ve found in my comment below. Three of them appear to be independent coinages. I should also note, however, that it does not appear to bear any relationship with anarchism proper. --Aelffin 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apparently serious usage: (1) Postmodernist writer Hakim Bey uses the term in a poetic essay titled Black Crown & Black Rose: Anarcho-Monarchism & Anarcho-Mysticism. Here, it is a retrospective label for the presumed phenomenon of Tsarist Narodnik anarchists among Russian peasantry of the 1850s-60s. He does not back up the claim, but reading the article on Narodniks, it seems like a reasonable proposition. (http://www.left-bank.org/bey/blackcrn.htm) (2) Myra Jehlen uses the term “Monarcho-Anarchism” as a retrospective label for an early American writer in the essay J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur: A Monarcho-Anarchist in Revolutionary America in the book Readings at the Edge of Literature. The book is described as being about “the central paradoxes of the American project”. (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14802.ctl) (3) An online article by John Wayne Sturgeon uses the term as a retrospective label for J.R.R. Tolkien’s apparently inarticulate political views, conflating them with the political situation described in the Middle Earth books. (http://www.thirdway.org/files/articles/anarchomon.html) Humorous usage: (4) Ken Brown’s link list describes Sturgeon himself as “non-violent-nationalist-British-Israelite-anti-racist-Christian-occult-anarchist-monarchism”. (http://www.cix.co.uk/~kbrown/lists/kenslinks.html) (5) Salvador Dalí used the term as a joke in a television interview. (http://www.thirdway.org/files/articles/anarchomon.html)--Aelffin 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Some people have used the term in the past, yes; but the problem is, almost all of them seem to think that they invented it, and none of them seem to have been using it to say quite the same thing. We could have an article here, I guess, but its content would amount to "a handful of people have used the term anarcho-monarchism, either in a humorous fashion or as a neologism to describe the views of a single person. The majority of people using the term seem to have no knowledge that it has ever been used by anyone else, and none have provided a concrete definition. Below is a quick listing of all the usages of 'anarcho-monarchism' we could turn up on Google." Ok, so we wouldn't actually say the last sentence, but you get the idea. I don't see how we could make an encyclopedic article out of that. --Aquillion 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In my official capacity as Lord High Parliamentian of the Royal Anarchist Pan-African Christian Party for White Islamic European Socialist Independence in Latin America, it strikes me that there is enough attested usage of these two related words to justify an article on this ideology. Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. One cannot maintain a belief in anarchism and simultaneously support a monarch. PERIOD. It seems like either a sarcastic joke article or the ramblings of a single, confused adherent. A poem that utilized the term (as described above) is not scholarly or academic in nature but is rather art while a few comments (which have suffered no peer-reveiw) are simply conjecture and I don't think either provide adequete source material for an article on a political philosophy. Blockader 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, it shouldn't be listed as a political philosophy. That's certain. It's a (deliberately) paradoxical or nonsensical notion. However, it's been used several times either by or in reference to notable figures, and as such, it should have an article (cf Grue, Bleen, Anarcho-capitalism). --Aelffin 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply I guess the difference between "grue and bleen" and anarcho-monarchism is that the former is rather inconsequential while the latter could confuse or misinform people who are trying to find information on actual schools of anarchism. Anarcho-monarchism, while obviously paradoxical to us, may create uncertainty or bias among the uniniated. Blockader 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply I agree that it might create confusion...but only if it were linked from or associated with the Anarchism article. Likewise, grue and bleen would create confusion if they were linked to the articles on printing or the electromagnetic spectrum. --Aelffin 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply I assumed that it would be linked from the anarchism article. Before this discussion it appeared in the "traditions" table to the right of the intro. As long as its not linked to the anarchism article I don't guess I really care whether its deleted or not. Blockader 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Reply No, it makes no sense to link it to Anarchism. I'd say anarcho-capitalism also should not be linked to Anarchism proper. I'm discovering that there are a whole slew of alterna-anarchisms or pseudo-anarchisms that don't come out of traditional anarchism...for example anarcho-nationalism and anarcho-mysticism. These are ideas alien to Anarchism. They have a place on Wikipedia in their own right, but it would be misleading to imply association with Anarchism proper. --Aelffin 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, notwithstanding the objections of his honor the Lord High Parliamentian, above. At best, it's an entry in Wiktionary. Kafziel 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Disambiguation or writing a new page to deal with things like "anarcho-monarchism" and "nationalist anarchism" and other nonstandard uses of the word would probably be the best way to sort it all out--in which case, I would support deletion. --Aelffin 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you changing your previous position of keep to this, or is this in addition to that? The way you put it on a new zero-indent bullet makes it hard to tell. --Aquillion 06:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. --Aelffin 11:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article cann not be deletes an in referencing the emotions of Blockader, it is more than possible to support a voluntary patriach... just as in Medieval Iceland, or in the spirit of German Kings. Anarchism calls for the destruction of coercive, involuntary rule and authority... just as Anarchists agree that people can come together to create voluntary communes, come together to forge third-party arbitration, so can they come together to form voluntary groups of people led by a patriach, who serves nominally as a leader and advisor. To delete this article would simply be giving in to pressure and supporting censorship... just as some anarchists view anarcho-capitalism as not anarchism.. it must be agreed that such theories must remain to be accessed... by the simply use of "anarcho-" or "anarcha-" we are agreeing that there are varying forms of the political theory known as "anarchism". Zadanian 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

emotions my ass. "spirit of German Kings"? "voluntary patriarch"? "supporting censorship"? "we are agreeing"? I'm glad someone has decided to fill the shoes of the banned TheIndividualist and Shannon in being utterly unversed in basic anarchist principles and general rationality for that matter. Piece, Blockader 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for your sincere and kind comment. Intangible 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be taken elsewhere. However...see my comments above. A "theory" doesn't qualify as part of the Anarchist movement just because it uses "anarch-" in its name. Anarchism is a movement, and it has a history. Anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-nationalism, anarcho-mysticism, panarchism, and perhaps anarcho-primitivism do not share any history within Anarchism proper, and from a traditional Anarchist point of view, they are mis-uses of the term anarchism. All of these alterna-anarchisms, pseudo-anarchisms, para-anarchisms, are separate theories and/or philosophies and/or movements. They have every right to exist and they have every right to have Wikipedia articles. But putting them within Anarchism proper is just facutally incorrect. --Aelffin 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, lacks enough verifiability to be anything more than a weird footnote in other articles about anarchism. Jkelly 21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons given above. Sarge Baldy 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasons, even if articles about ficticious people and places on wikipedia outnumber the real. --albamuth 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems both real and sourced and we have articles about simmilar political theories. // Liftarn 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm at work on an article about deontological utilitarianism. I trust Liftarn will support it against an Afd when the time comes. --Christofurio 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - FrancisTyers · 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- and I regret voting this way, because I love paradox. I'd like to be shown that such a movement exists and has something interesting to say in defense of the thought-halting terminology. Even a small movement with a mostly academic demographic (like anarcho-capitalism) might be of interest -- if the people using the term know one another, build on each other's works, etc. But all I've seen are a handful of references made for disparate purposes.

Sorry, no article. --Christofurio 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Though some of the ideas of Capitalism are in agreement with Anarchism, since both movements can trace the root of their respective ideologies to the Englightment, and Man as a Free Being with a Free will, the notion of Anarcho-monarchism is completely absurd, since one of the basic principles of anarchism is not to lead and not to be leaded. Project2501a 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. BlueValour 04:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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.