Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual monarchy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 improve it!. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dual monarchy

[edit]
Dual monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article replicates material at Personal union, an identical or similar concept. Propose deletion and a redirect to Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary is commonly named 'The Dual monarchy'. I'm not aware of the term used for other monarchies. Gazzster (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course - Yes, Dual Monarchy with upper case D and M will apply to Austria and Hungary, but the generic term would apply to all the other monarchies in that list. Certainly William of Orange/Mary of England, Castile and León, etc. The Portuguese call their Brazilian/Portuguese dual monarchy the monarquia dual luso-brasileira. Surely James I of England who was also James VI of Scotland should be an example as well?? Another one that needs to go there is the Primorias which was in fact a mini monarquía dual caused by the Asturian Pelayos and the Cantabrian Duque Pedros. So yes, keep it. It's a generic term. Dual Monarchy refers to Austria-Hungary, but 'Dual monarchy' refers to that one and any other examples. Tris2000 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have never heard it used to describe Castile and Leon or Holland and England, let alone Asturias, for which I have never seen the slightest hint of a reference to there being two monarchies. It is not a question of whether we could find examples where it could be used, or cases where such a term may de facto apply, but whether it explicitly is used, and specifically where 'dual monarchy' is being used as a complex noun (as a term of art, if you will) and not just an adjective-noun sequence because the author liked the sound better than twin monarchies or combined monarchies. It is portrayed in the article as a generic term, but is it really used that way? (Can a union of England and Ireland and Scotland, or Castile and Leon and Galicia and Toledo really be called a dual monarchy? Do we need Triple monarchy, Quadruple, etc.?) Or is it used by historians for just one or two specific cases? Agricolae (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wikipedia presents itself as an encyclopedia. Concepts and terms need to be referenced. There are no references and citations for this article. Even if this AfD fails, appropriate tags will have to be placed on it. More importantly at this point, we should ask ourselves, is 'dual monarchy' being invented here? Are as many 'examples' as possible being crammed here to give credence to a term which appears to be invented solely for the purpose? If 'dual monarchy', why not 'triple monarchy' or 'quadruple monarchy'? In other words, is this article self-serving? Now I believe it's fairly well established that 'dual monarchy' is a term used by historians to describe the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. And I'll give you Portugal-Brasil if it can be adequately reference. But to the best of my knowledge, Scotland and England were never called a 'dual-monarchy'.

Redirect to Peronal Union. Due to replicated material. --Cameron* 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Personal Union per nom. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, so I read the two articles. I couldn't identify significant differences in the meaning of the terms, although I am of limited expertise in this area. I then added dual monorachy to the personal union intro. It was reverted noting, "personal union can involve more than two states, eg, Calmar Union, realms of Elizabeth II of UK)". So I'm wondering whether this distinction supports keeping two separate article or, if not, how they can be appropriately merged? I have heard the term dual monarchy, but never personal union. Please be advised if you're going to attack me for original research and or pointy editing, I'm wearing my finest suit of armor! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, I'm not attacking you. I'm discussing the content, not personalities. By all means, let's have a courteous discussion about the content.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, to be honest I didn't compare who made the reversion of my edit to who is engaged in this discussion, and I definitely didn't feel attacked by the reversion. I thought the explanation was great, which is why I posted it here! Perhaps taking my question to the talk page (or raising it here) would have been a better approach than the way I went about it, so I was just kidding about being attacked, and was only trying to explain my effort to understand these two terms and how best to approach this AfD. My question, respectfully :), is whether a redirect (or deletion of dual monarchy) is appropriate if they aren't really the same thing? Especially, as seems to be the case, if dual monarchy is a more common term for the more typical type of personal union? Perhaps Dual monarchy should be the main article with the other article's content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, man. Yes, the two concepts don't identically match, so a redirect isn't the answer. I don't know that 'dual monarchy' is a commonly used term for any union between two sovereign monarchies, apart from Austria-Hungary. That's why I suggest a redirect there.--Gazzster (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom. Tris2000's suggestions, while worthy, are a form of original research. England and Scotland in personal union are never, to the best of my knowledge, referred to as the Dual Monarchy. If the Brazil-Portugal claim is proven, as a secondary use it should be referred from the Dual Monarchy/Austria-Hungary page with a hatnote. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page clearly identifies itself as a form of personal union, and links to the more fully realized article there. I've never heard the term personal union before so I've learned something by reading the dual monarchy page, even though the concept of a dual monarchy was familiar to me. The article seems to fulfill a distinct purpose from the personal union page by describing a notable subset of personal unions. Dlabtot (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose the question we need to ask ourselves though, is whether it is a 'notable subset of personal unions'? How do we know that? For the moment, all we have is this article saying that they are.--Gazzster (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a standard academic and political concept, at least for Austria-Hungary.. Therefore it is reasonable to have an article about it--though from the discussion above, it needs to be explained more fully DGG (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI agree it is standard for Austria-Hungary, which is why I suggest a redirect to Austria-Hungary. If it can be demonstrated that it is a 'standard academic and political concept' beyond Austria-Hungary, I'll reconsider. But no-one has yet.--Gazzster (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that. Cool, we're gettin' somewhere. So instead of a redirect, how about a rewrite? Mentioning only Austria-Hungary and the Irish political theory? Unless someone can suggest another notable 'dual monarchy'? I'm open to new ideas.--Gazzster (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be all for a rewrite on those lines, yes. Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary classification

Another issue is the apparent arbitrary classification of a number of the monarchies in the list as ‘dual monarchies’. For example:

The Netherlands and Great Britain 1689-1702. But why classify this as a ‘dual monarchy’? For a start, the Netherlands was not a monarchy; it was a republic. And ‘Great Britain’ at the time was ‘’two’’ monarchies- England and Scotland. So it should be a quadruple monarchy: England, Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. But let’s treat, for the sake or argument, Great Britain as one entity; England and Scotland. Why single (or double?) out Great Britain and the Netherlands as a ‘dual monarchy’? Ever heard of Ireland? Why don’t we call Ireland and the Netherlands a ‘dual monarchy’? Or the union of Scotland and Ireland? Or the union of Ireland and Hanover from 1714 – 1801? I’m not trying to humiliate the persons who wrote the article. I’m making a point that the classification can be very arbitrary indeed.

Babylon and Nippur? Egypt and Kush? How can we possibly transfer the relatively modern concept of a personal union to civilizations that existed before the Christian Era?

Aragon and Castille. Castille was composed of four state unions before it united with Aragon. So you may as well call it a quintuple (have I invented a word?!) monarchy.

So I believe the term should only be applied to countries which are habitually dealt with by that term.--Gazzster (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think of it, Australia and New Zealand are two monarchies with the same monarch? Is Australia and New Zealand a 'dual monarchy'? --Gazzster (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I could add any number of monarchies to this category:
  • Russia and the Kingdom of Poland
  • France and Andorra
  • Denmark and Greenland
  • England and Normandy
  • The Netherlands and Luxemburg (for a time)
  • The Patrimony of Peter with the March of Ancona
  • Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark
  • Bohemia and Austria
  • The Principality of Mordor with the Grand Duchy of Narnia

But by what justification? I have made my point.--Gazzster (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Personal union. This deals with the subject in a much more satisfactory manner than the present article. I am not at all sure how good some of the cases in Gazzster's list are. Greenland is better classified as a colonial possession; Schleswig-Holstein was a Duchy belonging to the Danish crown in the Holy Roman Empire. Andorra is actually a co-dominion between the French Prsident and a Spanish bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't seriously suggesting they be added to the list (Mordor and Narnia?). I was making the point that the choices in the list can be quite arbitrary.--Gazzster (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I prefer it as a separate article, mentioning just those instances where the term has actually been used, such as Austria-Hungary and Ireland-Britain (where it was proposed but not implemented). DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references that use "dual monarchy" to refer to Britain-Ireland, England-France and Denmark-Norway. DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that dual monarchy is not the same as personal union. A personal union involves two or more states where the head of state is the same, but the two governments of the countries pursue entirely different policies. In a dual monarchy, the two states act together usually with identical financial structures and the same foreign policies. In Austria-Hungary, for example, the Emperor held responsibility for the military, for foreign policy, and the two states were in a customs union. Whereas nations in a personal union have separate foreign policies, separate militaries and separate customs rules. DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for its own article. Thanks to Gazzster for the informed discussion that, I think, has clarified and improved both articles and to other editors for contributing good content to improve the dual monarchy article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say anymore?

[edit]

I think the idea is changing from keep, delete or redirect to 'edit heavily'. And DrKiernan and myself have already started. Unless there are other comments I think we can close this Afd?--Gazzster (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks for your efforts and explanations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thank you.--Gazzster (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Closure

[edit]

The closure tag is on the article. But I can't do the pretty blue backround/border stuff.--Gazzster (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this? DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Merci beaucoup!--Gazzster (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dual_monarchy&oldid=1070291279"