Talk:Federal monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-12. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federal monarchy article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] United Arab Emirates

Couldn't this also be contrasted with the de jure structure of the United Arab Emirates? The UAE is in theory a federal republic made up of monarchies, one of which acts as President. Of course, in truth the office is the hereditary right of the Sultan of Abu Dhabi, but in theory, the federation is headed by a non-hereditary leader. --Xyzzyva 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it could. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Head of state of individual Australian states?

While she does not bear title such as "Queen of Victoria" or "Queen of Tasmania", The Queen is indeed the head of state of individual Australian states, which remain sovereign and thus the crown, represented by a governor, can act only upon the advice of responsible state ministers not those of the Commonwealth in state matters. The article currently implies that she is a single legal entity within Australia which she is not, this being clear in constitutional cases of the High Court of Australia, for example a case between Victoria and the Commonwealth of Australia would be called Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Victoria v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.240.20 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen debates about this topic in articles relating to the queen and the Canadian provinces. It's tricky, hence the need for its own article. Near as I can figure, there is effectively one metaphorical throne for all the commonwealth, a metaphorical crown for each member country, and a metaphorical legal sovereign for each state/province. I'm not sure how to say that well enough to put in the article, nor what to use as a citation for it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Above is a claim that Australian states are "sovereign" - I think we need to see a citation of a constitutional article that says so, sovereign-without-qualification. Sovereign-in-state-matters won't do. Second, in the text above there is "thus" - the thus seems an unwarranted deduction. Some time ago, I scanned the Australian constitution without finding anything that points to a queen of Tasmania - note the lowercase q. -- Iterator12n Talk 23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
The nature of federations is that sovereignty is split between the national and state governments. Contrast local governments which are created by a sovereign state, but can also be dissolved by that government. There is one sovereign state, with that sovereignty divided between two levels of government. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The situation may not be the same in both Canada and Australia. Within Australia, the Queen certainly is Queen of Australia, the Head of State of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is a federation. But the states in that federation are not directly comparable to Canadian provinces, they are more similar to American states. As she is clearly also the Head of State of each of the (now semi-)sovereign states, but not styled Queen of Victoria, et al., the style Queen of Australia, in right of Victoria is appropriate; this status might be analogous to the Crown in the interwar period, when the King reigned over the entire British Empire in a single monarchy (instead of the sixteen separate ones as today), and was King of the United Kingdom, in right of Australia (and in right of Canada, and all the other Dominions). Perhaps this distinction would make more sense if the title of the office was Queen of the Australians, who then heads several overlapping semi-sovereign governments. --Xyzzyva (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The Constitution Act states that the colonies "have agreed to unite in one indisoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established". That is there is one Crown, and a federation under it. There was no federation of crowns, so no federal monarchy. Of course the Crown is now the Crown of Australia, but the situation has not otherwise changed. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this idea of 'federal monarchy' is quite bizarre. As MichaelJohnson says, crowns cannot be federated. How could they be? There is in Australia one Crown in 7 different jurisdictions. An unusual situation? Certainly, but there are not 7 crowns or 7 monarchies. So the term makes no sense for Australia. What is federated are the states. They surrendered their sovereignty in 1901. This is, I fear, another case of Wikipedia inventing a box and attempting to stuff every country they can find into it.--Gazzster (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One concept too many

The title of the article refers to three concepts: a federation, a constitution, and a monarchy. This may be one concept too many. If so, and taking into account that there is already an article about constitutional monarchy, it seems that the present article should focus on federated monarchies. A constitution or not is just one of the variables of a federated monarchy. (Actually, I'm hard pressed to come up with a federated monarchy at the national level that doesn't have a constitution.) Anyway, is there any objection to making the article into one about Federated Monarchy? (or Federal Monarchy, maybe?) -- Iterator12n Talk 04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. (I prefer Federal Monarchy.) Freigut 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Given that we are the only three people who have touched this article in the last year, I'll go ahead and move it now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this move also provides Freigut with an opportunity to expand on the federal (or something close to federal) monarchies in German history. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

I've never heard of the term "federal monarchy" used in political discourse. None of the references support the use of the term. The article appears to be original research, providing a definition for a made-up term. What is needed is a reference to the term being used in a political text book to describe a system of government. I've placed a tag on the article in the hope that an editor can come up with a suitable reference. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that I've read something in an academic text about how monarchies apply to federations, though I can't remember what term they used. What term would you suggest we use instead? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have to invent a term for the sake of, indeed we cannot. That is the first problem I have with this article, it seems to be a made-up definition of a made-up term. Without a reliable source, this is simply original research. The second problem is that the authors then proceed to use the term as a catch-all for at least two different types of state. One type is Malaysia and the UAE, which are federations of continuing monarchies, the other example used is Australia, which happens to be both a federation and a monarchy. Without a reliable source, we cannot be sure which type of state the term should be applied to if indeed it should be applied to either. I'm not saying we cannot use the words "federal" and "monarchy" together in a sentence, rather we need to show that the term "federal monarchy" is in use to describe a particular type of government. If no source is forthcoming, I believe the article should be deleted. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There is some information in here that would be useful to Monarchy and to Federation, so I would recoment a merge over a delete if we were to get rid of it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure federal monarchy is an invention. It's telling that there is not one direct quote to support the use of the term. I've brought it up at Talk:Monarchy of Australia where an edit has been made using it.--Gazzster (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: if the UK and Spain are not 'officially' federal monarchies, why are they on the list? And what is an 'official' federal monarchy anyway? There are no citations for the term.--Gazzster (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I confess, I too have never heard of this term before. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nomination for Deletion

I nominate this article for deletion, since there is not one citation for the term federal monarchy. It appears to be unscholarly. Countries seem to be assigned to this category with little if any references, and often tenuously (case in point, UK and Spain, as above). Someone might need to help me create the discussion page. Haven't got my head round that yet.--Gazzster (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Worked it out. Pretty simple.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rationale

What is the rationale for keeping the article? I respect the decision, though I still don't agree. But it would nice to know why.--Gazzster (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the AFD? JERRY talk contribs 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. How do I get there?--Gazzster (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page there is an infobox that tells the article was nominated for deletion. In that box, click on the blue "the discussion". JERRY talk contribs 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, at the top of any wikipedia page, click on the words "my contributions", and it's currently the sixth thing down. Since you participated pretty heavily in this debate, I am bit surprised that you don't know how to find it. Cheers, JERRY talk contribs 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that. But all that is is the discussion. There's no review of the discussion, summation, anything to indicate what motivated the final decision to keep. Unless I'm still not seeing something.--Gazzster (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Such a summarization is normally not created, unless the deletion closing is reviewed at WP:DELREV. JERRY talk contribs 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way forward

Now this article is to stay, I suggest the easiest way forward is deleting all unreferenced material and returning only referenced material in the future. BTW by referenced of course I mean references that provide either a definition of Federal monarchy, or define a particular country as a federal monarchy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I am disappointed in the decision but that is how Wikipedia works. It would be good if decisions for deletion or non-deletion could be made with a short summary and the reasons for making the decision. The only reason for retaining seems to be that there are references. But we are only told there are references, and no-one has attempted to tie any of them to the topic. No-one wants to touch it, but they do not want to delete it either. Strange. One contributor suggested that the people who want it deleted should go to the trouble of referencing it, now that references have been proposed. Even stranger. But yes, if we save it, we're gonna have to gut the crap out of it. Might give it a go.--Gazzster (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The tabula raza approach eh?--Gazzster (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it needs to be changed and have references added — go ahead and add all of the tags you want to it — but taking that to a sarcastically literal degree by deleting everything is not helpful. The information in this article is true and useful, it just has to have those references added and and be cleaned up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're assuming that everything in the former version can be matched to the cited references, the contents of which no-one seems to be sure, and which have not been tied to anything in the article? Yes, perhaps the references are useful. But let's see when someone has the time and patience to go through them all.--Gazzster (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tbe trouble with the old article is that it was invented, unreferenced rubbish. Returning it is pointless. Produce relevant references. Just don't make things up. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it wasn't invented; everything in that article was true. It's problem was that it technically qualifies as original research because there has been little academic study of this subject. It still requires references for inclusion in wikipedia, but saying that the information was made up is misleading. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you, but in any case Wikipedia is not about what is true, but rather what is verifiable. I really think you need to review Wikipedia:Verifiability. In the words of Jimmy Wales, quoted on that page: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not being silly at all.

An editor insists on adding uncited material to this page describing Australia and other Commonwealth realms as Federal Monarchies, and the United Kingdom and Spain as federations. Leaving aside the problem that there is no cited definition of a Federal Monarchy, the following problems exist with these edits: Firstly the UK and Spain are not federations. They are unitary states that have devolved power to some regional authorities. There are no sources that describe Australia as a Federal monarchy, indeed looking at primary sources (the Constitution Act) we find Australia described as a Federation under the Crown - no federation of Crowns. If you are going to make extraordinary claims, provide cites. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The information is cited in the world fact book; it clearly says which countries are federations and which are monarchies. The footnotes explain the situation of countries that are not officially federations, but I’ll spate those in the table for you. Furthermore, you seemed to have disproved your own argument regarding Australia. As per its constitution, Australia is a "federation under the crown", ergo it is a federal monarchy. The only "federation of crowns" is Malaysia, and the article clearly explained that. Your blanking of sourced information is bordering very closely on vandalism, and the only think saving it from being so is the fact that these countries being federations and monarchies is only common knowledge to the people who know what those terms mean and so cannot be called universal knowledge. Unless you somehow find a source saying that countries like Australia are not monarchies or not federations, the fact that they are is undisputed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no denying that Australia is both a federation and a monarchy. The question is whether the term "federal monarchy" is applied to Australia (in this case). Please come up with a source for "your" definition of "federal monarchy" - you have been asked to do this for a month now. I see you have removed fact tags. Clearly this is original research, on an "owned" page. Unless you return the fact and OR tags, and remove the uncited material, I will have no option but to lodge notice of a dispute. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The removal of the OR tag was not intentional, just an oversight in reverting, I agree that it belongs there. I am assuming a meaning as per the title of the page: a monarchy that is federal. You seem to be using the term to mean a federation of monarchies, which would not be under "federal monarchy", it would be under "federated monarchies". The article described the difference between the two before it was blanked. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So where is your source defining the difference between a federated monarchy and a federal monarchy? --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A federated monarchy and a federal monarchy are the same thing worded differntly. The different case is one of federated monarchies, where there is a different monarch in each member of the federation. This distinction is part of the constitutional structure of each country and can be found in any source describing their governments, such as the Factbook or the countries' constitution. As you have pointed out, however, neither specifically use either term. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks but these are your definitions. They may be fantastically well written and spot on accurate, but without sources they violate wp:v and maybe wp:or, and are totally useless for Wikipedia. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The terms are WP:OR, but they were just the terms I was using off the top of my head. The existence of federal monarchies can be backed up by national constitutions as well as almanacs and academic journals. The only problem is that all these sources don't use the same term as each other. But that is just semantics. As long as we explain that there is no universally accepted term, we can still talk about the topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have sources --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There are endless sources, beginning with the primary sources of those countries' own constitutions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. Let's have them then. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with source

The CIA World Fact Book has been quoted as a source for this article. However I can find no reference to the phase "Federal monarchy" in any of the chapters of countries currently or formally mentioned in this article. Can the editor who added this reference please advise how it is relevant to the article? --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And the work, History of Federal Government, cited by Paularblaster (see the deletion discussion) is dated 1863! The relevant pages are 94- 100. The treatment of what the author calls 'federal monarchies' is in the context of a study of federal republics. His contention is that only republics are capable of being true federations. The author is American, and, of course, the USA is the perfect federation. He cites feudal states as approximating federal monarchies. He cites Belgium and the Netherlands. He excludes Spain. He excludes the Germanic Confederation, which existed at the time (nothing like a contemporary source) and of course, many of the countries of the article, like Australia, Canada and Malaysia, did not exist. Hardly a sound source.--Gazzster (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this all comes down to a disagreement about terms. The CIA World Fact Book clearly defines these countries as monarchies and clearly defines them as federations. By simple linguistics, this makes them each a "federal monarchy": monarchies that are federal. You seem to be using the term to refer to a "federation of monarchies". The only state that uses such a system is Malaysia, and the article explained that. If you feel that the term "federal monarchy" is ambiguous, what term would you suggest be used to describe a "monarchy that is federal"? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument is not over whether countries are both federal and monarchies, but whether the term is a valid term used in political dialogue. Clearly the term "constitutional monarchy" is widely used and clearly understood. But just because two words can be found in the same sentence does not make a combination of the words a useful term. For instance we can have cars that are coloured red and run on diesel. No-one would suggest that the term "red diesel cars" is a valid category in general usage, and certainly not a term that requires a Wikipedia article. The problem is we have no definition for "federal monarchy". If we had a political text with a definition, we could cite that and problem solved. But my guess is that there is no definition, simply because this is not a term used in political dialogue. Which is the answer to your question - what term would I use? The answer is none - because this is a concept that does not need a term. To claim it does, then make one up, is Original Research. It is adequately covered by phrases such as "constitutional monarchy and federation". The average reader has no problems connecting the concepts, we don't need to invent phrases to assist them. As a result of the NfD we now have a number of references to the use of the phrase in various contexts. It is appropriate to illustrate the phrase with these references, but it is not appropriate to apply the phrase to countries for which no reference can be found. Without a sourced definition we are floundering around in original research. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that "constitutional monarchy and federation" explains well the concept at which this article was originally trying to get. Rather than deleting most of this page to make it match the sources for "federal monarchy", I would suggest moving the page to "constitutional monarchy and federation" and restoring it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two problems with this. Firstly what would this proposed article add that a separate reading of constitutional monarchy and federation would not achieve? As a supplementary question where does that place monarchies that are federal but not constitutional? The second problem is that we now do have a number of sources for Federal monarchy, and renaming it would effectively be deleting it by the backdoor. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you have a federal state that was not constitutional? To have a federation you have to officially assign powers, and such a division of powers would have to be a constitutional-level law. That being said, this article has already been moved to get rid of the word "constitutional", so the new name wouldn't have to include it. In regards to deleting the article by the back door, I don't think there would be much opposition to that. I voted to keep this article because I wanted an article talking about how monarchy works in a federation. If the vote was about whether to have an article about the term "federal monarchy", I would have voted no because, as you have said, the term is not in academic use. I thnk that and article under a new name would be useful because in federations, monarchies work in slightly different ways at which neither the article federation nor monarchy would get. The article Monarchy in the Canadian provinces has examples of a few things that could be discussed in such an article. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You can write what you want as long as you can provide reliable sources. Could you have a federal state that was not constitutional? I guess what we understand by constitutional monarchy is monarchy restrained by democratic institutions. So a federation of autocratic states? Maybe some would argue that is what the German Empire was. Subject to sources, of course. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Great to see a free and intelligent exchange here. The German Republic was a federation, even when Hitler ruled it. So if you could have a republic ruled without a constitution (as the Third Reich was) I suppose you could have a federation run by a monarch in an unconstitutional manner. I'm afraid an explanation of what we think a 'federal monarchy' might be would be so contentious as to make a good article nearly impossible. To give some examples of the difficulties we might have:

1) Are countries in personal union 'federal monarchies'? The work I looked at which Paularblaster cited (see above) thinks so.

2) Are monarchies federated under a non-hereditary elected head of state (such as Malaysia) federal monarchies?

3) Do autonomous regions have an analagous status to federated sovereign states? So would we call the UK or Spain or Denmark (re Greenland and the Faroe Islands) federal monarchies?

4) Could you call feudal monarchies, where vassals payed allegiance to a monarch, federal monarchies? The work cited does.

There may be other problems. So the definition is not as straightforward as some suppose.--Gazzster (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Arctic Gnome has seen fit to use his admin powers to protect this page. Clearly this is a mis-use of his admin powers, as he is clearly involved in the dispute over this page. Further he protected it without the OR tag, nor the Ref tags. Unfortunately we now have to take this matter to the next level. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Arctic Gnome, please explain.--Gazzster (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that protecting the page was probably overkill in this case, so I'll put it back with my apologies. However, your blanking of sourced information comes very close to vandalism since countries like Australia are undisputedly monarchies and federations. I know that your edits are good-faith, and I think that this is simply a case of us using terms differently, as per the section above. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article remains unsatisfactory

Even with somewhere else a "mountain of references" about the nature of a federal monarchy as different from a simple combination of federation and monarchy, the article still has the same unsatisfactory quality as before. I think it’s upon the "keepers" in the AfD discussion to improve the article, or face a repeat of an AfD request. What is so peculiar about a federal monarchy that isn't already covered by federation or monarchy?-- Iterator12n Talk 14:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you see significant peculiarities about federal republics that isn't covered by federation or republic? --thirty-seven (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that there are several countries that use the title "Federal Republic" in their names, so a definition is required in that case. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Iterator12n, the particular qualities that are covered by niether of those articles are the qualities that occur only when they overlap. Check out Monarchy in the Canadian provinces for some examples. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flawed Definition

'A federal monarchy is a federation of partially self-governing states under a single monarch.[citation needed] The characteristics of a federal monarchy is the sum of the characteristics of a federation and a monarchy'.

'Partially self-governing'? How can a state be 'partially self governing?' They are either self-governing or they are not. If they are 'partially' autonomous they are in fact governed by an other entity. And in any case, I can think of plenty of states in federations which govern themselves completely, and would continue to do so if the federating power ceased to exist, eg., the states of Australia, the states of America, the republics of Russia. 'The characteristics of a federal monarchy is the sum of the characteristics of a federation and a monarchy'. With respect to the editor, this last phrase is awkward. I know what he/she is trying to say. But why not say, 'a federal monarchy is a monarchy which is both a federation and a monarchy'? Why? Because it is like making a definition for Black Cat; a cat that is black. Far better, if we're going to treat of the subject, to provide a description, not a definition. And the descriptions will be varied, because we'd be talking about various countries and political ideas.--Gazzster (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Same problem - no sources. But apparently that's OK as this article is "owned" by an admin. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
All I have been doing is restoring the information which already has sources — this does not constitute ownership. Your interpretation that there are no sources is because you are misusing the term "federal monarchy". For the record, I want this article moved to define its scope less ambiguously. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No. You have defined "federal monarchy" then hunted round for countries that meet your definition. You have no source for the definition, the "source" you claim for the countries in the list, and the only source at all relevant to the article, the CIA book, does not mention "federal monarchy" at all. When presented with a variety of sources that do not agree with your interpretation, you ignore them, and then propose renaming the article to avoid using them! --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please list the sources that you believe disagree with my point. Since the CIA site describes each of those states as federations and as monarchies, it is fully able to be used as a source, despite not having the two words beside eachother. Contrary to your accusation, I have not defined "federal monarchy" because there is no need to: I am using the word federal as an adjective and monarchy as a noun; both of those words have established definitions and nothing changes when they are used together. This is very elementary linguistics. I have never said that the phrase "federal monarchy" is in wide use among academics, nor am I trying to promote the term. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. You invented the term. Combining "federal" and "monarchy" may well be simple linguistics, but it is also synthesis, a form of original research. "Federal monarchy" without sources is no more deserving of an article than "cold tea" or "bloody mess", or any other combination of adjective and noun. I don't have to find sources that disprove your "definition", you have to find sources that support it. I'll repeat it again, find sources that use the term "federal monarchy" and write the article to reflect those sources. Anything else is original research. You are an admin, READ THE POLICY and apply it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We both know that there are no sources that use the term "federal monarchy". However, that is not because it is not a notable subject; it is because no universal name has been created. Take, for example, 9/11. The event has no name, so the article is at a description of the event: September 11, 2001 attacks. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Clearly the 9/11 attacks occurred, and indeed there are sources for September 11, 2001 attacks. But that is not the issue. The implication is that the term "federal monarchy" is a term that is in the language describing federations that are also monarchies, such as Australia. In the case of Australia this is clearly false. There are no sources because Australians do not describe Australia as a "federal monarchy". We could apply the term if there was a definition in political texts of a "federal monarchy" that described the Australian situation, except we can find no such definition, apart from the one you made up at the start of the article. (As an aside, why is the definition I made up any more wrong than the definition you made up? At lease I had a source.) But no sources for a definition exist. We do, thanks to the AfD debate, have a number of references for "federal monarchy". We should re-write the article with reference to these sources. That is Wikipedia policy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally have no interest in the term as your sources define it, so I won't be the one to write an article about it. If this article is to go in that direction, the table would no longer apply, so I suggest moving it to List of countries that are both federations and monarchies, which will probably be tagged as listcruft, but I think would still be of some use. The prose that has already been deleted was also about the other definition, so it would be best moved to federation and monarchy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Now we can't see each other, so understand that I have a smile and I'm not intending to be insulting. But do you recognise the flaw in your logic? You admit that there is no such term as 'federal monarchy.' You have admitted to Michael that 'we both know that there are no sources that use the term "federal monarchy"'. You have also conceded that it is not a 'notable subject'. On those grounds, one would expect you to concur that the original nomination for deletion was correct, as well as the OR tag. I think you've just given grounds for review. Instead of deletion however, you propose renaming the article. One could be forgiven for thinking that your grounds for keeping have shifted. If you're defending the material, why don't we shift it to federation (although I imagine its already there)? And if you want to rename, the discussion now revolves on whether there is any value in making a list of federations which are also monarchies?--Gazzster (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't mind at all if Arctic Gnome wishes to place this information in a list - I'll leave it to others to decide if it is list cruft. Rather orphans this article, though. Guess we can deal with that later. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Gazzster, I think that there is some notable stuff on here, but my vote on the AFD was to merge or keep, and given that this article would be hard to make very long, I had a preference for merge. Now that we have shown that the current title can be read in two different ways, it must be either moved, merged, or deleted, so there is definatly grounds for opening up the talk again. I personaly think that the prose should be merged into federation and monarchy, the table should be moved to a list page, and the phrase "federal monarchy" forgoten since it was just a convinient title and didn't have any strong supporters in the first place. The prose still needs some sources, and the table needs a good intro to avoid being called cruft. I'll get around to both of those when I get some free time, but for now you can do what you want with the page under this title with my blessing. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What would be the value of transferring the material to federation and or monarchy when they are already there? I suggest we propose a number of propositions and have a vote on what we want.--Gazzster (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If AG wishes to edit another article, that is up to him and the editors there. As far as this article goes, I'm happy to edit it with one or two sources we have, stub it, then let it sit. Returning it to AfD will only result in another keep, given the availability of sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Gazzster, if you have a problem with the phrase "partially self-governing", you'll also have to take it up with the federation article itself. The defining characteristic of federations is that they are partially self-governing: they have full governing power over some fields of jurisdiction and none over other fields. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Wikipdedia is not self-referencing. So if a concept is challenged, it cannot be defended by referring to unsourced material from another article. And I notice the definition in federation is unsourced. So it is perfectly sound to challenge the phrase in the context of this article. I would have thought the defining characteristic of a federation is that it is a union of sovereign states, which, by definition, are self-governing. The solution is perfectly straightforward. Produce and cite a definition. It should be perfectly simple, if, as some say, it is a common, straightforward term.--Gazzster (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Interestingly, most dictionaries seem to use the term differently than how it is used in academic journals, which don't give concise definitions that I can replete here. The closest dictionary definition to how it is used in political journals seems to be from Webster, which defines "federal" as "formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government". This is what is meant by "partially self-governing": surrendered sovereignty but with limited residuary powers. This still doesn't quite give the whole picture since in most federations the provinces/states are, in fact, still sovereign over those specific fields of influence. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a curly one. As you imply, dictionary definitions aren't always helpful. I'll try and get my hands on a dictionary of political science.--Gazzster (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd have thought that a better definition of a federation was a State where sovereignty is divided between two levels of government. Not all federations started as a union of sovereign entities, some were unity states that turned themselves into federations. But you would need a source for that. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] A Number of Propositions

From this discussion it seems there may be several ways to go forward.

1 Take it for review for deletion- on the grounds that the original contention that there are no sound sources for a generic term, 'federal monarchy' is valid. There may be grounds for naming particular states so, but this has not been demonstrated.

2 Leave it as it is - the OR tag remains, until reliable sources are found and cited, and the material edited accordingly.

3 Merge with federation and or monarchy - any citeable material which is not already in federation or monarchy is transferred there.

4 Rename - To List of monarchies which are also federations. The OR tag could then be removed but sources would still need to be cited as the question of what fits a federation would in some cases be contentious.

Vote

  1. I favour 1. I see no value in a list of monarchies which are also federations, especially as federation and monarchy cover the idea adequately. I realise I am implicitly advocating the deletion of federal republic. Yes, that has its own problems, but let's confine ourselves to this article for the moment.The problem as I see it is that there are still no adequate sources for the topic. The most comprehensive source offerred seemed to be the 1863 work from the Harvard library. It's useless for the reasons I offerred above. Those who came to this article's defence simply lifted a bunch of references without, it seems, studying them to see how they are useful. Consequently no-one has come forward to defend them or to use them to save the article. Admin seems to have simply noted that there are sources, and made a decision without examining their value.--Gazzster (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

# In favour of 1. Though the article will likely not be deleted, at least it will be reviewed. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: it's already been reviewed for deletion. --G2bambino (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Where? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
See top of this page. --G2bambino (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it has been. Somebody slap me? GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean that the decision not to delete be reviewed.--Gazzster (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If the consensus is to keep the article (which it seems to be), it's difficult to fight it. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)\
Consensus? What consensus? A few people chucked some crappy references into the ring and said, 'here! deal with it!' --Gazzster (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no consensus to 'Delete' either (which is what's needed to get an article deleted). GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion for a vote grew from the above discussion involving only three contributors, one of whom is an administrator whose admitted to protecting the page on his own initiative (he's since reverted the protection and is being a good sport). The other two, including myself, wanted the article deleted. It's obvious that no-one else is really interested. I can guarantee that if I or Michael Johnson edited this hodge-podge, it would be immediately reverted. Yet no-one seems to want to improve the article or tackle the thorny issue of the references. I suspect because they know they're crap. One editor said that it was my responsibility to edit the article, since someone deigned to give me some 'references'! --Gazzster (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's take 'one step' at a time. Put the article up for Afd, if it's defeated then move on to content. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)