Talk:Dual monarchy

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Disambig project?

What does it mean that this is part of the Disambig project? I think it needs to be added to the appropriate history projects. I wanted to suggest noting that a dual monarchy is a type of personal union (I think). So this would be good to mention in the intro so people can link back and forth and better understand the distinction.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information deleted from article

This was removed fromt he article, and I just wanted to make sure that it's not accurate information: "A dual monarchy is not necessarily a personal union.In a personal union two or more kingdoms are ruled by the same person but there are no other shared government structures. States in personal union with each other have separate militaries, separate foreign policies and separate customs duties. In this sense Austria-Hungary was not a personal union, as both states shared a cabinet that governed foreign policy, the Army and common finances. ^[1]" If it were or just needed clarification it would be good to includeChildofMidnight (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about Austria-Hungary is correct. But to be honest, I'm not sure the definition of personal union is correct. I was assuming the definition I found was correct (though I mean to check it out) and pointing out that Austria-Hungary does not fit that definition. Therefore a dual monarchy is not necessarily a personal union. But we will have to explore the definition of personal union. I have a hunch a persdonal union is simply a union of states under a single person, irrespective of whether there are separate armies and foreign policies.--Gazzster (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the definition of personal union contradicts the opening definition of dual monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Columbia encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AustroHu.html

Personal Union

I have rapidly discovered that attempts to research 'personal union' on the web are very difficult. There are no shortage of web pages but most are verbatim quotes from Wikipedia.And to make it even more frustrating, many of these are quotes from older edits of Personal Union. I don't know if anyone out there can help? Does anyone beside me find it scary that we band of amateur, untrained, often erroneous, hit or miss kind of editors have such influence?--Gazzster (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (which isn't much, sorry) my Columbia encyclopedia has no entry for personal union and under dual monarchy says, "see Austro-Hungarian Monarchy". My Random House dictionary says Dual Monarchy: "the kingdom of Austria Hungary 1867-1918". Nothing for personal union. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the "scary" influence of WP, esp. the websites that copied and pasted from WP back when verifiabilty was less enforced. When doing a Google search I always include
"-Wikipedia" as a search term. You'll still get a couple of WP pastes, where there was no attribution, but the number of hits goes dramatically down and the quality of the information - if it's out there at all - improves correspondingly. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Ta!--Gazzster (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dual monarchy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202111034/http://bartleby.com:80/65/au/AustroHu.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AustroHu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

Dual kingship 41.223.118.69 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Columbia encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AustroHu.html

[1]