Talk:Republican Monarchist Debate

The starting material for this article is taken primarily from two secondary sources. One is the republican website based in the UK, as listed in the sources, and the second is a monarchist site from the UK that is sponsored by the UK's monarchy. In no case is original work used here and both arguments are presented to maintain a neutral POV. Sandwich Eater 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the International Monarchist League based in the UK does not receive any support from the UK Crown. --gbambino 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

The article needs to be completely rewritten.

Formatting, especially, should be the same throughout, and should follow a more normal pattern then it currently does.

Agreed. Sandwich Eater 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't make much sense - it begins as a general article on the arguments re republic v monarchy, then it states (and continues) on the basis that it is an article about the republic v monarchy debate in the Commonwealth realms. It is also very POV, as Gavin rightly points out (in his edits). --Lholden 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose any article about a debate is going to have POV (the arguments of each side being simply their point of view), but some insinuations here were blatant speculation, and others were just inaccurate. However, that aside, it's true that this article purports to be about a debate between monarchists and republicans in general, but focuses only on four countries. --gbambino 00:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted other problems with the article which need to be addressed if this page is to remain - namely, there needs to be a definition between arguments against absolute monarchy and against constitutional monarchy. I say this because there's a bullet point in the article which refers to history producing some "arguably abnormal monarchs" and then says "see Nero and Caligula." Nero and Caligula were absolute monarchs who reigned without a parliament or laws limiting their powers. In a constitutional monarchy an "abnormal monarch" could be replaced by parliament with a regent, or removed all together in favour of another member of the family - as has happened before in at least British history. This point also relates to monarchs not being accountable - again, it depends on the system of monarchy. Which republicans are making these arguments, and which type of monarch are they making these arguments against? --gbambino 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think the article in question should be merged with Republicanism in the United Kingdom - the text relates mainly to the debate with respect to the UK (as Sandwich Eater stated above). Gavin's point on the type of monarchy is a valid one - since the British debate relates to a constitutional monarchy, the arguments are specific to that form of government. Moreover, I don't think it's possible to have an article that criticises monarchy as broadly. --Lholden 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global vs commonwealth

I suggest either the article is renamed something like "Debate on the monarchy in Commonwealth Realms" if it is to focus on the debate within the Commonwealth Realms or, (my preference, given that such information is already on the Commonwealth Realm article) arguments between republicans and monarchists in general. --Lholden 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The initial article was simply 'monarchist vs republic' but a lot of the material was taken from UK-oriented sites. A subsequent editor tailored the introduction more towards the commonwealth. I think that the article would be more interesting if it could bring in arguments from other monarchies around the world and have a more global focus.Sandwich Eater 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should focus more broadly on such a debate, but, personally, I'm not aware of much debate taking place in countries other than the four mentioned (even though there really is no debate in the UK, and virtually none in Canada). Perhaps there might be transcripts of parliamentary debates regarding the matter in Barbados or Jamaica. I also know there is a republican group in the Netherlands, and there are monarchist parties in the US, France, Iraq and Afghanistan; though, again, I think actual debate is relatively mute in those places as well. --gbambino 15:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with UK Republicanism article?

Since the article is meant to relate to the debate in the UK, it should be merged with Republicanism in the United Kingdom. --Lholden 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that without the side-by-side arguments from the monarchy camp it would be a POV section of the republicanism page, or, it would lose the value of being able to read both arguments side-by-side in one place. I also saw a special on monarchy on public television recently that featured tonga and a parliamentarian struggling against a slightly more absolutist monarchy. Also, there is an example of a restored monarchy in Africa that seems to have been very successful. If we can restore the international nature of the article to include Japan, the netherlands, et cetera I think it will gain value as a separate page.Sandwich Eater 15:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. Should we merge the article with Republicanism in the United Kingdom, obviously the section relating to arguments put forward by monarchists should stay, otherwise the article wouldn't meet NPOV requirements. --Lholden 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many people read wikipedia in Tonga, the netherlands, Japan, et cetera, but I think we should hold out hope that the page could be internationalized... Sandwich Eater 12:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, That's all good and well, but the reality is that the article in question is at the moment mainly related to the debate in the United Kingdom and most of the points raised (as they relate to other countries) are already covered by other articles, such as the Commonwealth Realms article and the Constitutional monarchy article. --Lholden 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just skimmed along on the Canadian Monarchy Debate type page and it includes points and counter points just as this page does. Question: should each nation have it's own point/counterpoint page or could they be merged into one? The arguments are really all the same and those pages could reference this one. The bits that are nation-specific could be left on the national pages. Sandwich Eater 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the article down now a bit, so that the focus is on the republic v monarchy debate in the UK only. --Lholden 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, um, I'm not sure there is consensus to localize it to the UK and I found a pithy Otto Von Bismark page I thought I would quote and add to the merriment wherein he blames the abolishment of Monarchy after WWI for the conditions that leadto WWII, despite WWI being fought by a bunch of monarchies. Fascinating. To me it still looks like one vote to one to try to internationalize the page rather than focus and merge it. But your edits are still in the history if others want to chime in... Sandwich Eater 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding POV

I entered a request for feedback for this article. I only had one editor respond. His main caution is that debate-type articles can easily become a magnet for POV and that must be vigorously monitored. It is difficult to source most of the arguments made in a debate because so much of it is opinion, eg. "Aristocratic systems demotivate the common man" or "Meritocracy creates a competitive basis in society." Or there are suppositions like "Monarchies could become absolutist more easily than a republic could beceome a dictatorship". What should distinguish the points listed here from POV is that each of the points made should reference or source a published article or campaign, preferably a secondary source that records monarchists maintain X, Republicans maintain Y. (The primary source would be original work or a campaign, the secondary source would be an article describing the primary source such as a news organization reporting on Republican or Monarchist doings). If an editor adds a point or counter point to one of those summarized "platform" statements then they should be ready to source it. Sandwich Eater 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles is a functioning dignitary of state as a member of the royal family

My understanding from the Monarchist websites I've read is that the royal family is seen as an assett that is somehow less divisive or better than a cabinet or other leadership team. Charles and the various members of the royal family are constantly asked to undertake various roles in their capacity as representatives of state. So I'm not clear why my reference to his action with regard to China keeps getting deleted. It is well referenced to the BBC website, clearly that is a reputable source, no one denies it happened, and Republicans clearly take the stance that it is a violation of the impartiality. i am not sure how a monarch could act as a referee if they do not eventually take a stance on something, even if it is extreme (like acting against a dictatorship were one to form). I will clarify that he was not an acting monarch.Sandwich Eater 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]