Talk:Integralism/Archive 1

Brazilian Integralism

Does anyone want to add content? I'm having trouble finding people interested in Brazilian history 172

Disputed links

I'm sorry but what is wrong with the two links I added, they both have very explicit and useful information on integralism. user:adroyt

• Because ANUS enthusiasts such as yourself have been adding links everywhere. Your additions were probably removed because they smelled of spam. Could you incorporate some of the content of those pages (without plagiarizing or violating copyright) into this article? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:56, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

• There's really no reason to incorporate text from the ANUS link into the Wikipedia article. The American Nihilist Underground Society are well known fascist integralists. They're a fairly large and somewhat relevant organization with regards to the philosophy. There's actually no reason why they should not be, in some way, represented in this particular article. I put the links there a couple of days ago, and I'm adding them back unless you can give me any reason why they're not a relevant source on integralism. Their primer is a pretty extensive introduction to the philosophy. It's hard to consider it "spam" in this case. User:Wacoj

• Please, if whoever keeps editing out the ANUS primer would explain why they're doing it, instead of hitting and running, please do. Otherwise, I'm keeping it in there - there's no good reason why it should not be in there. User:Wacoj

Corporatism?

This sounds rather like Corporatism. Bastie 17:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Integralism ≠ Fascism? Why or why not?

If anyone is going to assert, in this article or other Wikipedia articles, that there are important differences between Fascism and Integralism, I think that it behooves us to say clearly just what these differences are supposed to be, and not just say, "There are some important differences, for example X and Y." -- X and Y and what else? Let's state this as clearly and completely as possible, please. Thank you. -- Writtenonsand 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Integralism is Catholic, Thomistic and inspired by the Middle Ages. It is somewhat related to traditionalism, though not entirely. Fascism is revolutionary, grew out of radical left-wing politics like syndicalism, socialism and anarchism. They converge on the concept of an organic society and respect for authority. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, I suggest you read Roger Griffin's The Nature of Fascism and all his other books on the subject... --Loremaster (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

British Integralism

British Integralism; Slimmed down previous highly flabby article into a few lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.31.153 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious Integralism

Why this article is related only to political integralism and not also to religious integralism? --Dejudicibus (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Hello, I have recently noticed the existence of this article apart from its counterpart at Integrism. The existence of both seems, to me, unnecessary. The existence of two seemingly-unrelated categories is also unnecessary: Category:Integralism and Category:Integrism. It would seem that the political flavors of Integralism might be possible to document and source reliably. However, I have nearly emptied the "Integrism" category, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is derogatory and inflammatory to apply this term to groups or persons, and per WP:BLPCAT we do not normally do that. Secondly, it was wholly unsourced and un-verifiable and so per WP:CATV I was forced to strip the category from all but seven articles. Therefore, let us discuss whether we need this dichotomy of articles as well as categories. I believe that the wholly religious "integrism" of Catholicism can be documented in this article. And I think we can ultimately dispense entirely with the category of religious "integrism" as WP:POV. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Merge subject to WP:V and WP:CITE. What we have here are clearly two articles that are substantively about the same subject. Obviously nothing should be merged or kept that is not properly referenced. I have no opinion on the subject of the category and that can probably be best handled at WP:CfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Be bold and go for it! Daask (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead needs improvement

The lead section of this article does not explain what Integralism is with any clarity. Apparently Integralism holds that "political rule must order man to his final goal". Huh? What the heck does that mean? Someone needs to rewrite the lead to be more comprehensible. I would do it myself, but I still have no idea what Integralism is :P Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Having no idea what it means makes you the perfect Wikipedia writer. So go ahead! NRPanikker (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

From merged article Talk:Integrism

Untitled

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Objective?

It is obvious that this entry expresses a bias, I quote: "The integrist confused that which was the faith, with that which expressed it." So the independent objective accounting of "Integrism" is that it is confused about what faith should be?

I came to this entry from the one on Traditional Catholicism where someone suggested merging it with Integrism. The article on Traditional Catholicism was comprehensive and, to me, unbiased.

From this entry I learn that Traditional Catholicism and Integrism are not identical. If this is true then there is no reason to merge the articles.

This really says little. If not refined by someone with an objective understanding of Integrism, I think it should be deleted.

LAWinans (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (Not an Integrist, not a Traditionalist Catholic, or even a plain-old Catholic --- God bless Henry VIII!)

Benjiboi and WP:OR

According to this, the recent changes done to the article was by a banner sock-puppet of Benjboi, a propaganda activist for homosexual and transsexual causes. The article pins together in an usual way Catholic social teaching, sedevacantism and other movements, as well as contentious tags such as "Category:Hate" as a form of confused anti-religion propaganda. His changes are also WP:OR and should be rolled back. Son of Belloc (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War section off-topic

Integrism is completely defined in the first three paragraphs of the article: it is a term used, particularly in France, for Traditional Catholicism with a definite, pejorative, socio-political weight attached to it. The long essay on the Spanish civil war is as completely out of place here as it would be in the main Traditional Catholicism article. It belongs in the article on the Spanish Civil War, or topics relating to it (which may do well to link to the integrism article, if it's deemed relevant to the topic), but it is as out of place here as a three-page essay on traditional Catholicism in Minnesota (or Sicily or anywhere else on the planet) would be. --81.250.211.203 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an article about a term, not every conceivable historical event that term could relate to. If the Spanish Civil War is viewed as a conflict between an integrist right-wing and a communist left-wing, it does not follow that the articles on Integrism or Communism should spend 80% of their time talking about the Spanish Civil War in general. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that we already have a link to Category:Integrism. If the Spanish Civil War essay belongs in this article, so does the entire text of each of these articles on connected topics. Clearly that's not how encyclopaedias work. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

“Heretically” vs. “implicitly”

Attempts to revise the the blurb at the top of this article to read that the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty “heretically” prohibited integralism are in violation of Wikipedia’s policy against neutral perspectives. While it might be fun to edit the page for giggles, if you’re trying to just get a screenshot for your own sake please just do it on your own computer or in the “view revisions” tab and don’t alter the article. Otherwise, corrective action against the relevant account/IP might be levied. Thanks for understanding glad that this page is getting viewed! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Trying to rewrite this portion of the blurb to avoid NPOV violations. Please recommend solutions. I'll give it a shot myself too:

"This 'traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ' was heretically rejected by the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty, which states, 'The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.'"

Will consider deletion of this portion altogether as well and its move to further in the text. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, so I think I have the solution that allows us to implement the information copied from Vatican.va by IP 24.128.184.241. See the following:

"In December 1965, the Second Vatican Council approved and Pope Paul VI promulgated the document Dignitatis humanae–"Declaration on Religious Freedom"–which states that it "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" while simultaneously declaring "that the human person has a right to religious freedom," a move that some traditionalists such as Society of St. Pius X-founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre have argued is in contradiction to previous doctrinal pronouncements."

Before removing this version, please confirm agreement on the Talk page.~ Pbritti (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The Second Vatican Council expressly rejected notions integralist based statehood. The entire document states it quite plainly, not just in its condoning of religious liberty, but its explicit rejection of clerically based forms of governing policy as well as its duty to enforce a state religion. Both of these notions are contrary to the defined traditions of the Catholic church prior, and thusforth constitute objective heresy. The tidbit about "not violating doctrine" is simply in total contrast to the rest of the document. It's akin to committing and action and then lying about its comission when caught in the act. This is not a matter of politics but simply objective observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.184.241 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

24.128.184.241, there are two major flaws to your edits and I would encourage you to consider them before further engaging in what is spiraling into an edit war.

1.) While you are not alone in holding this opinion of the Vatican II decrees, it is precisely that: an opinion. As this is an opinion not held by the Catholic Church nor the entirety of humanity and not an disputable truth–despite what your personal persuasions might be–it must be weighed in the balance. Take for example discussing the Eucharist. As a Catholic, I affirm the Eucharist to be the True Body and Blood of Christ. However, this thing I know to be objectively true is not understood as such by all of humanity. For that reason, I might write on the article for the Eucharist that "The Catholic Church affirms that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ" and then proceed to add a citation containing that information from a reliable source such as the Catechism or an academic article. Additionally, the word "heresy" is in inherently a disputed point. It would be improper to refer to Lutheranism as a heresy in its article, however a sentence could say "the Catholic Church has declared the tenets and practices of Lutheranism as heretical" followed by a citations of an official Church declaration.

2.) The second problem with your edit is that it fails to conform to Wikipedia standards for sourcing. The sentence you keep inserting is making an argument (which is not permitted under NPOV rules), and that argument is not substantiated by both the quoted text and the source you quote. Further, it's evident that the quotation from Dignitatis humanae is a copy-and-paste from Vatican.va, which is discernible by the "(2)" within the quotation.

Since your revisions as of right now are not in conformity with Wikipedia standards, I'll be reverting them. Do not attempt to revert them back unless a consensus supports such changes or you are able to produce an edit that follows Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to have help workshopping an edit that contains your views that can be inserted into the article, feel free to tag me in a post on this talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Trade Unions?

The sections on comparisons with fascism says that integralism stresses "trade unionism". I can't find sources on this. If anyone has sources, feel free to add them, but otherwise, Ill remove the mention of trade unionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmericanWarlord (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to Vatican II

It is written that "Integralists therefore do not accept the Second Vatican Council's perceived repudiation of civilly established Catholicism." however integralists like Fr. Edmund Waldstein ostensibly do.
Horarum (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Horarum: Good catch. The cited material does not support the statement, one that must be defensible to be included. It will be removed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

SPLC Criticism

I contest the accuracy of the SPLC's criticism of Integralism. First, we must recall that as the Southern Poverty Law Center page notes there is extensive criticism of the SPLC's listings. Secondly, it is quite hard to prove that one is not a sedevacantist. It is a fringe idea that many Catholics do not entertain. Thirdly, the claim of anti-semitism is quite hard to disprove as well. Leading integralists like Fr. Waldstein and Adrian Vermeule have never said anything anti-semitic to my knowledge yet integralism is tarred with that brush because the SPLC says a number of unrelated groups are anti-semitic. Now, I am not contesting that the groups the SPLC claim are anti-semitic are not anti-semitic. Rather I contest that integralism at large should be considered anti-semitic, when two of its largest (English-language) proponents are not anti-semitic, at the very least not publicly.

Horarum (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Horarum: Your contestation of the of the SPLC's pronouncement of integralism as anti-semitic and sedevacantist are legitimate and worthy of discussion in the appropriate manner on this article. However, your edits were reverted for a couple reasons pertaining to standards and practices of this wiki unrelated to ideological rationale. The section detailing the SPLC's statement is a space where a perspective regarding integralism from a notable (if contentious) institution can be recorded. If a source were written that directly confronted these charges from the SPLC (or potentially even anti-semitism/sedevacantism in integralist movements more generally) then we could reasonably appended those to the end of the section. However, the source and statements you have provided and cited, while authored by an integralist, do not directly discuss integralism, anti-semitism, sedevacantism, or the SPLC. For these reasons, they constitute minor violations of Wikipedia policies, WP:NOR and the subsidiary WP:SYNTH.

If you would appreciate further elaboration or aid in locating and citing a well-sourced counterpoint to the SPLC statements, I'll make myself available. All this in mind, remember that Wikipedia tries to present factual and well-sourced information first and foremost and that sometimes sources will not be immediately available to provide a balancing opinion, particularly on topics somewhat more niche such as this. Again, reach out to me for any questions or requests you may have. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvements

This article does not currently do a good job of explaining Catholic Integralism.

Firstly, I think Integralism should be a disambiguation page, and this article should be moved to. Catholic Integralism, as many people outside of Catholic philosophical circles primarily know of Brazilian Integralism, which is not usually included in discussions of Catholic Integralism, but is rather a distinct concept.

Secondly, the introductory paragraph used to be much better. The one of the sources used to justify changing it from “the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society” to “an authoritarian and anti-pluralist Catholic state” is discussing Brazilian Integralism, and without this, the other is not strong enough to hold up that definition. A check of those sources on the internet archive will confirm this, as I have just done.

Thirdly, I don’t see the problem with added “focusing on critiques of capitalism and liberalism” to the sentence about the Integralist revival, as this is already in the sources noted.

Mention that some Integralists are left-leaning in the lede should not be a problem, as this is already substantiated in the article itsself.

Adding more clarity between the Catholic legal theory and the nationalist movements is necessary because reliable sources discussing them do not discuss them together. Without reliable sources saying that there is a direct line between the Catholic Integralism and the other Integralisms mentioned under the variants section, it would be a wp:synth issue to place them in the same article based on name. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)