Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal monarchy

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 Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Federal monarchy

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

I nominate this article for deletion. The term federal monarchy is entirely unsourced. There is not one citation for the term. It appears to be an invention, which is unfortunately used in other places in Wikipedia. It has, for example, been used in editing Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of Canada and other Commonwealth realm related topics. The countries in the list on this page seem to have been put there on the most tenuous of grounds. The UK and Spain are not even federations, as the author acknowledges! --Gazzster (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have any more thoughts on the topic? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not really. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge — The term was not made up by wikipedians. Google Scholar has 69 academic sources using the term. Also, contrary to your accusation, the article specifically says that the UK and Spain are not federations. I quote: "The United Kingdom is not officially a federation, but some of its constituent countries (esp. Scotland) have considerable power and autonomy." and "Spain is not officially a federation, but its constitution gives considerable power and autonomy to the governments of its subdivisions." If you really feel the need to get rid of it, at least merge it into monarchy and federation. The information about how monarchies work within federal states is still useful. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment If references are obtainable, why are they not used? And if there are academic sources, what sort are they? Reputable? Well known? Well-used? Why are we not given the opportunity to judge them? The case of the UK and Spain is exactly my point. If they are not federations, why are in the list? As fillers? I do not feel merging with federation or monarchy will serve any useful purpose. No, the article is shoddy and unscholarly.--Gazzster (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I sampled the 69 academic sources mentioned above and found that in each sampled case the country in question happened to be a monarchy and a federation. I did not find a single case where it was argued that a federal monarchy had qualities different from the qualities of a unitarian monarchy other than the qualities directly connected to the difference between a federation and a unitarian state. Nor did I find a single case where it was argued that a monarchial federation had qualities different from the qualities of a republican federation other than the qualities directly connected to the difference between a monarchy and a republic. In other words, federation and monarchy are disjointed concepts, they can be considered by themselves, nothing new emerges from a discussion of the joined concepts. Some months ago I corrected a few falsities in Federal Monarchy but overall I think it's one of these articles destined never to reach GA status. Let it go. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Try sampling this - but scroll back to page 96 and read from there for full effect. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to do original research? If someone outside of wikipedia coins the term Federal Monarchy why are you doing more research here to claim that it is invalid? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, in agreement with Iterator12n. Being a federation and being a monarchy are two independent qualities which a polity may have. This is just the intersection of the two classes (federations and monarchies). Nothing distinctive emerges from the combination. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There is some tension between the two concepts as one implies unity of sovereignty and the other implies its division. They are therefore not independent. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Could you point to one or two sources that expand on the tension and dependence? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Freeman and Russell, as below, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and Iterator12n. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOEFFORT and WP:PROBLEM. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, isn't this just personal union--Him and a dog 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The comments above indicate that the sourcing problem can be cured. A federal monarchy is different from an absolute monarchy or a federal republic. The concept is one where individual provinces or states have their own lawmaking authority, but are still governed by a (please forgive me for "making gender an issue" blah blah blah) king or queen. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there necessarily a difference between an absolute monarchy and a 'federal' monarchy? This seems to be quite an arbitrary assumption, and is one of the problems of the article. A nation can be a federation, yet still authoritarian. Case in point: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.--Gazzster (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Interesting example of theory and practice. I recall that the U.S.S.R. also had freedom of speech and the right to vote in democratic elections. Leonid Brezhnev said so. Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Quite. But the point stands.--Gazzster (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  I can't remember what it was to begin with... Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this article is a hotch-potch of original research and verifiable information. But there is verifiable information aplenty to be had. Gleig (George Robert Gleig (1879). A school history of England, abridged from Gleig's Family history of England. p. 15.) talks about how Britain was a federal monarchy under Vortigern in 426. ISBN 0415158621 pages 146–147 discusses the creation of the federal monarchy of Federation of Malaya in 1957. ISBN 0773506764 pages 17–18 reports on the views of Edward Augustus Freeman on whether it was possible to turn the United Kingdom into a federal monarchy, ironically addressing the very aspect of the subject noted by Iterator12n above amongst other things. (You can also read his Lectures to American Audiences, published in 1882 by Trubner & Co. to read his views in his own words. He pointed to Germany as an example of a federal monarchy. Bertrand Russell, in his 1896 lectures entitled German Social Democracy, agreed with this.) ISBN 1419130129 page 56 talks about how Libya was a federal monarchy under Idris I in 1951. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both talked about the United States being a federal monarchy at several points. ISBN 1550287346 pages 87–88 talks about how the 1867 Constitution of Canada created a federal monarchy.

  There's plenty of source material to make an article. Wield the merciless swords of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, chop out the unverifiable material and original research, and write an article based upon these and the many other sources that exist. The way to fix this article is to edit it. Be bold! Keep. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This article must be kept. Federal Monarchy is a widely used term, and not invented for Wikipedia. If you conduct a simple search on Google Books you can see over 300 books which use the term. It's a very important term that requires a Wiki article in its own right. What this article needs is some work from Wikipedians to collect this mountain of references and cite them in the article. Lester 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment It is one thing for several authors to use the term in reference to particular countries and in a particular context. Another entirely to invent the category and put various nations in it. What are the criteria for membership in this club? The list, as it stands, actually has more than one kind of animal in it. There are federations under a single monarch, such as Australia. There are unions of several monarchies, such as the UAE and Malaysia. And then there are autonomous regions under a central government, such as the UK and Spain (which are not true federations at all, as the author recognises!). And then there is the implication that a 'federal monarchy' must be constitutional. Why? So there is no clear definition of what a 'federal monarchy' might be, and hence no crieria for classifying nations. But suppose we interpret federal monarchy strictly, as a union of states under a single monarch (the UAE or Malaysia should be called federal monarchies, not monarchy). There would be four or five. They are,the Commonwealth of Australia, the Kingdom of Belgium, Canada, the Kingdom of the Netherlands (depending on whether the Provincial States are considered states in union or not) and the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. So the article would create a category for four or five nations. We would have to ask ourselves how useful that would be, especially considering how seldom, if at all, nations are categorised in this manner. Three of them, Australia, Canada, and St Kitts and Nevis, are already covered by Commonwealth realm.And that particular category is contentious enough, as its talk page shows. --Gazzster (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You are approaching the task of writing Wikipedia articles in the wrong way. Instead of worrying about what novel definition of a federal monarchy we, as Wikipedia editors, could work out for ourselves, in flagrant contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, you should be looking at sources and seeing what countries sources say to be, or to have been at some point in history, federal monarchies, and what they say about federal monarchies. The historians and constitutional analysts are the experts, not us. They've written about this subject in history books, papers, and articles, and discussed it in published lectures. We are encyclopaedists. Always work from sources. Uncle G (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. As I've already said, where 'federal monarchy' may be used (I acknowledge the references, though I'm doubtful of some of them) it is in reference to a particular country or in a particular context. So while the term may be perfectably workable for a particular purpose, it is original research to create a category and try and stuff as many nations as possible in it without any clear idea of why they should be there.--Gazzster (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: you acknowledge the hundreds of books and other references relating to 'Federal monarchy', and I respect that you disagree with many of those references. I think the answer is to keep the article, however, if there is any controversy about the use of the term, that can be included in the article. That is, provided you can find references that there is a controversy :) Lester 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to prove controversy. The onus is on the article, at present unsourced with an original research tag, to demonstrate that it should be there. That is how Wikipedia works.--Gazzster (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per Uncle G. Edison (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• strong keep. Not a neologism (to add information from JSTOR, the term is found in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1893), The History Teacher (1985), The English Historical Review (1974 and 1998), The American Political Science Review (2001), Russian Review (2001), The Review of Politics (1947), The Journal of Modern History (1955 and 1987), The Philosophical Review (1918), Italica (1961), Sociological Perspectives (1992), The American Journal of Sociology (1923), The Americas (1975), Publius (1980)). For those doubtful that people using the term makes it a valid category of political thought, and desirous of seeing it discussed as a category in its own right, with its own problems and potentials, see here, particularly pp. 96-100. Also, somebody should add Composite monarchy to "articles for creation" (or whatever it's called). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I originally added the OR tag to the article and raised this issue on the talk page of the article. The main examples used in the article of Federal Monarchies are Australia and Canada. This interested me, as having been involved in politics in Australia for the last 30 years, I had never previously seen the term applied to Australia. It seemed to me the term was made up, and the article original research, so I labelled it as such and invited editors to add references. Almost one month later no references have been added to the article. We now have in this debate two editors producing a potpourri of academic references to the words "federal" and "monarchy" being used at least in the same sentence, if not adjacent. Interestingly none of the references appear to apply to the main subjects of the article, Australia and Canada. If the supplied references, if indeed relevant, were to be used in the article, it would involve such a rewrite as to require the editor to start with a blank page. Therefore let's "be bold" and delete this fatally flawed article. If someone wants to then come back and write a new article based on published references, all power to them. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This doesn't really fit with just a scope of Australia and Canada. have you looked for references? Why is delete and then rewrite better than rewriting it as it is? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Editors have had one month to re-write the article and no-one has felt inclined. It seems that if we are to wait for a re-write the only option is to delete the current article, as it is entirely unsupported by references. And while it is not my job to search for references for what is a fiction, I did indeed do a search, and found nothing to support the article in it's current form. So we either blank the page while waiting for a re-write, or delete the article. Deleting seems a better option. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The term is out there and has been for some time it seems according to the given references. Performing original research about the legitimacy of the article title in a deletion discussion isn't new but it isn't right nevertheless. Why oh why do political topics on wikipedia always become partisan debates? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nothing partisan. Editors have had a month to improve the article. Now at the last moment some have found a variety of references that don't support the article, but may support another article with the same title. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Federal republic exists; and, Paularblaster provides a number of sources that may prove the term to not be a neologism. --G2bambino (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Paularblaster is in as good position to improve the article with references as anybody, but nobody has. Without access to the references it is impossible to see if they are even relevant. In the meantime the article as it exists is misleading. It seems to me we have an article that says Federal Monarchy is X, but once we raise the point that in fact it is not X, others have come with references that claim it is Y. But the article still says it is X. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a similar discussion on Talk:Federal republic.--Gazzster (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about deletion there. That said, if this article is not to be kept, I wouldn't have an issue with merging this information into somewhere else. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The editors there discuss why certain countries are classified as federal republics, and one asks what is a federal republic. He or she receives a reply which seems pretty much a single editor's arbitrary definition. I think we have an analogous situation. What would you suggest it merges with? Even if it did, the question, 'what is a federal monarchy' remains unanswered.--Gazzster (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, simply inserting a few references will not save the article as it stands. There are problems with it, as indicated here and on Talk:federal monarchy. Better to delete.--Gazzster (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The correct term for the article's content seems to be Constitutional monarchy. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: The argument for deletion seems to change. Earlier it was inferred that the term 'Federal Monarchy' was invented for Wikipedia. When over 300 books were presented, we are told that references don't matter, even when some of the books are academic text books written by political scientists and eminent university lecturers. Even a simple Google web search shows high grade references for 'Federal monarchy' on the first page. The wiki article on Federal Monarchy has existed since 2006. It is only being listed for deletion now, because various arguments recently took place on other articles about whether or not Australia is a Constitutional or Federal Monarchy, or both. Deleting the opposing definition as being non-valid is a way to win the argument. However, eminents are widely using and defining and lecturing about the term 'Federal Monarchy' in large numbers of publications. Just look at the number of political scholars on the Google search list. The article must be kept, and the sheer weight of high-grade references proves its validity. The academics say its a valid term. It's not up to us to say its not.Lester 10:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the term is still invented. OK, it has been demonstrated, far too late, and without any reference to the article, that some academics do talk about a 'federal monarchy'. The first and most obvious question is if these sources are so noteworthy, why were they not cited? But in these instances, the term is used in particular contexts. Here, the term is used as a category, to fit what are actually three different kinds of governments:

1) a federation under a single monarch (such as Australia) 2) several monarchies under a head of state (such as the UAE and Malaysia) 3) autonomous regions under a central government ( such as Spain and the UK).

I suggest that the category is an invention of Wikipedia. And I'd also refer interested parties to Talk:monarchy, where it is disputed what a monarchy actually is. The word itself means 'one ruler'. By that criterion, we could include the United States as a 'federal monarchy'. The category is not so neat as some suppose.--Gazzster (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment References do matter, that is the point. The references quoted (and it is difficult to judge them at this distance) do not support the article. If you must, re-write the article according to the references. The point is as it stands almost all of the current article would disappear. This is still a term in search of a definition. And that the article has stood since 2006 is neither here nor there. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the argument for deletion does not change. Federation and monarchy are independent concepts. Above, there is talk of a mountain of references but where is the reference that shows anything emerging from "federal monarchy" that doesn't follow already from "federation" or "monarchy"?? Consider a simplistic illustration of my point: there are the concepts of "house" and "purple", and nothing is gained from an article about "purple house." On the other hand, take "house" and "white" and something new emerges from "white house." Federal monarchy appears to be a case of the "purple house" category, unless somebody comes up with referenced quotations to the contrary. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with constitutional monarchy, as it just seems to be a specific type of it, and prune any OR which exists. Orderinchaos 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

some references: Here's just a small sample of the varied references from the top of the Google list, which use both terms, 'Federal Monarchy' and 'Constitutional Monarchy' as separate meanings. Please use the 'Find' or word search function of your web browser to locate the words 'Federal Monarchy' and 'Constitutional Monarchy' in these articles: Ukraine Government embassy in Australia, University of Firenze, Italy, The Economist magazine, US Government National Science Foundation, The UK Local Government Finance Directorate, The Malaysian Bar (Law Association), China Central Television, etc etc etc.Lester 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously exists and therefore deserves article. Gryffindor 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but..: Thanks, Lester, for going to the trouble. But are we going to read through all that? We would need to sift out the references and analyse them in their context. That would be a major scholarly work. And quite possibly original research. What we need is a definition that we can lift from a number of reputable sources. No, what we have here is a case of some well-meaning person/persons creating an article with a flimsy foundation. This happens all too often. Many schoolchildren use Wikipedia, and it gets copied on sites like answer.com. We have a responsibility to write and edit mature, well-thought through articles. The finest paper encyclopedias in the world, such as the New Encyclopedia Brittanica do not have federal monarchy or federal republic (I checked). Neither do they have Commonwealth realm or any number of entry titles to be found here.--Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Back on 13 January you asked "If references are obtainable, why are they not used?" Now that they've been provided in abundance, why don't you use them? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I use them? See the above paragraph. Why should I? Why didn't the person or persons who wrote the article in the first place use them? I am not going to spend hours sifting through pages of obscure websites, reviews and essays in order to save an article of dubious value. If you want to keep it, why don't you do it? If an article is challenged on account of lack of verifiability, the onus is on the article to reference itself and justify those references. That is the Wiki way. The fact is, reams of stuff has been provided. But no-one has tied them to the article or even published them here so they can be discussed!--Gazzster (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You should because you care about the quality of the article and want to improve wikipedia by editing articles. The "onus" is not on articles, it is on editors - a group to which you belong. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not defending the article, am I? All we have is some persons citing material. But the material is not organised; it is not cited, quoted or referenced to any part of the article. We don't know how valuable the material is. We don't know the different contexts of the material. We dion't the authors. Tell you what, why dont you volunteer for the mammoth task of reference this article?--Gazzster (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason the onus lies on you rather more than on me is that I didn't bring the article up for deletion. If you read the guidelines, you'll see that before bringing an article to deletion you should check for sources yourself, and either clean up the article or tag it for clean-up. Simply nominating it in disgust at the current state of it is not quite the thing. re-editing to add: Granted the present state of it is pretty awful, but it's not a hopeless case, and the initial rationale for deletion ("neologism", "original research") has been shown to be a good-faith error. "Federal monarchy" is a valid and existing category of political organization, distinct from "constitutional monarchy" and entirely distinct from "personal union" (two of the merge suggestions above); but the term applies particularly to (1) 19th-century Germany; (2) present-day Malaysia; and (3) theoretical discussions about possible forms of government. All the guff about Canada, Australia, Spain and the UK should be deleted - but not the article as a whole. I'm reluctant to edit it myself because my particular penchant is for biographical articles, not abstract categories. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe - maybe we could make a rewrite. But not without gutting it. And I believe you've demonstrated that. You don't seem to be terribly sure of what a federal monarchy is. And I don't blame you, because the article isn't sure. And noone else on this page seems terribly sure either. You talk about the 'guff' about Australia and Canada, whereas someone like myself, for example, would think if you're going to talk about a 'federal monarchy', Australia and Canada are two of the few nations that could fit the category. Others might suppose, as I do, that Malaysia is a federation of monarchies, not a federation ruled by a monarchy.I agree that imperial Germany might have been a federation. Yet others might deny that the constituent states of Germany were truly federal; one could argue that they were not sovereign, and that they were coerced into a union which was really governed by Prussia. This is the problem. There is no real definition. Someone have stuffed a number of countries into an artificial box, and some act surprised that they don't appear to fit! Unfortunately many of the more humanistic articles suffer from this kind of arbitrary interpretation. Wikipedia's scientific articles are, on the whole, much better. My contention for deletion remains. Persons have produced heaps of unassessed reference material, used in particular contexts for particular countries. They can hardly count as valid sources. Better to delete, and perhaps supplement Monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely sure what a Federal Monarchy is, thanks. You still haven't quite got your head round the fact that this is an established term dating back at least 150 years. "Others might suppose, as I do, that Malaysia is a federation of monarchies, not a federation ruled by a monarchy": this is your own neologistic definition of what the term "federal monarchy" covers: a federation of states (monarchies or otherwise) which has a monarch as head of state for the federation as a whole who isn't necessarily internal head-of-state of each of the constituent parts - so that, for instance (pace your own POV on German federation), Bavaria remained a kingdom until 1918, with its own army and its own head of state (Ludwig II until he lost his marbles, then Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria, then Otto I (still with Luitpold as regent), then Ludwig III), but from 1871 as part of the federation that had the German Emperor as head of state. Some of the other states federated to the Empire were not monarchies (Hamburg and Bremen, for instance, were and are city states within the federation), but the Empire as such was a monarchy - hence "Federal monarchy" rather than "Federation of monarchies". --Paularblaster (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding the meat of what I'm saying. Define 'federal monarchy' and reference that definition please.--Gazzster (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, yes I have been avoiding the meat of what you're saying, in an attempt to apply WP:CIVIL. What you're saying is that the original deletion rationale being groundless you want to change it to "can't be arsed". Sorry, I'll retract that. All you have to do to find the answer to your question is follow the links that I and others have provided, links that include several to works by E. A. Freeman, a source notable in himself. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) --Paularblaster (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2008 (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.