Talk:Mediatisation

Speling of mediati*ation?

does anyone have a reference for whether this should be spelled "mediatization" or "mediatisation", or whether it's another of those pesky UK/US differences?

Attitudes in the UK

The article claims that "Morganatic marriage does not exist in English law, and the British royal family and British aristocracy, while traditionally concerned with rank, often adopted a far more flexible attitude"

However, in article Princess_Louise,_Duchess_of_Argyll we find this: "Louise viewed marriage to any prince as undesirable, and announced that she wished to marry John Campbell, the Marquess of Lorne, heir to the Duke of Argyll. No such marriage, between a daughter of a Sovereign and a British subject, had been given official recognition since 1515, when Charles Brandon, the first Duke of Suffolk, married Mary Tudor.[3] "

It seems that, barring new references to support the claims in Mediatization, the claims about the attitudes of the UK monarchy that are not supported. Four hundred years without a recognized marriage between a royal and subject, does not support the claim of the royals specifically having "often adopted a far more flexible attitude". Perhaps the paragrpah needs to be edited to speak solely about the aristocracy and NOT the royals.

Paulc206 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the difference could be that among the British royal family marrying foreign royals was a matter of custom rather than law. As for the nobility, while they tended to prefer marriage to other high ranking nobles, marriage to lower ranks (so long as they were "respectable") would have occurred regularly (even if it wasn't the norm). There were not usually the legal and social ramifications in the UK the way there would have been in Germany where marrying lower ranks opened a legal pandoras box for those involved. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I think the page Mediatization should be renamed Mediatization (history), and the phrase 'defined broadly' should be removed, as it wrongly gives the impression that this is the most common use of the noun 'mediatization'. In the English language, few have heard of this originally German historical concept.

Patrick Kinsella 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your contributions to Mediatization (media) and restored the old content. This article has about 40 backlinks (see here): all of them are related to princely states, none are related to media studies. -- Petri Krohn 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. But I think you have not responded to my suggestion. Is there any reason why this article should not be renamed and the phrase 'defined broadly' removed?

213.202.172.114 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new article Mediatization (media) is still orphan, lacking any backlinks in article space. You should start by inserting links to relevant articles. So far, I see no proof that media studies is the main use of the word mediatization. -- Petri Krohn 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louise was Queen Victoria's daughter, not granddaughter. 70.249.44.89 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This the English Wikipedia, and there is a strong flavour here of someone German trying to create an English word which is not in fact genuine. May we please have some examples of well-written English works for the general reader (not highly specialised academic papers) which use this supposed term? Deipnosophista (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that there appears to be a "German" trying to "create an English word": the term is obscure in English, whether referring to communications or to historical geo-politics. What evidence is there that the word refers more to media than to diplomacy? FactStraight (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently improving and rewriting the article Mediatization (media). It is no longer orphan. I agree that the word mediatization sounds awkward, but this term has gained widespread usage in media studies. I agree that the present article should be renamed to Mediatization (history), or perhaps subsumed under some other article. Agnerf (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd statement

"This is one of the reasons why so many monarchs married German princes: German mediatised families were especially abundant."

This is a very strange statement. How many "monarchs" married German princes ? Hardly any! Queen Victoria of the UK, yes, and who else ? Perhaps it should state that "so many monarchs married German princesses".Eregli bob (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

monarchy?

Broadly defined it is the subsumption of one monarchy into another monarchy in such a way that the ruler of the annexed state keeps his sovereign title and, sometimes, a measure of local power.

I'm not sure the word "monarchy" covers the whole spectrum. Dozens of city-states with a republican form of government were mediatized in Germany. Wouldn't "subsumption of one state into another state" be a more adequate broad definition?--Lubiesque (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, useless article

Since the word mediatisation (or mediatization) was created in the peculiar context of the Holy Roman Empire and was, and is, only used in the context of the Holy Roman Empire, this article is redundant since the topic is already dealt with more extensively in the article German mediatization. IMO, this useless article should be deleted.--Lubiesque (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While the information in German mediatization is accurate and well-written, its emphasis is on impacts on episcopal more than secular entities. Only in the last few sentences of its final section does it mention what is now most remembered and referred to historically in non-German literature: the post-1815 status of the families affected by 19th century mediatization. Either that focus needs to be added there or this article should be enhanced to reflect it. Also, there is much important history and information still to be summarized here and here. FactStraight (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you would like to be written concerning those families affected by the 19th cent mediatization could simply be added to German mediatization. This rambling, unsourced article here, which contains just a bit of this and that, is -- frankly -- of very little value. Maybe it would be easier to fuse it with German mediatization, as I have the distinct impression that deleting a Wikipedia article that has been around for quite some time is no easy task. As it is now, the existence of two articles on (German) mediatization adds nothing... except confusion --Lubiesque (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the merger, as can be seen here, but I share the concerns expressed there by john k -- and therefore respectfully demur from your POV -- about the emphasis the combined article should reflect. FactStraight (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lubiesque. This article is unsourced and completely redundant as it stands. Redirect it to German mediatization and then move that article to a better title, since it deals with secularization also.

I have never seen the term used outside of the context of the Empire. So there is no real difference between "German mediatization" and plain old "Mediatization"—except perhaps that it wasn't always or only German, but rather imperial. Srnec (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a deletion tag now. I don't see anything important in this article that is not covered by German mediatisation. If there is anything worth preserving here then please move it to German mediatisation. Agnerf (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mediatization or mediatisation?

I realize they're both acceptable variants in usage, however shouldn't Wikipedia attempt to be consistent about it?

This article uses "s", but the article discussing its use in the Holy Roman Empire uses "z". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.189.82 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong reference

The only reference on this article is currently Lundby (2009). However, Lundby writes about the different topic of Mediatization (media). Hence, this article has no valid references. Agnerf (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I propose that this article be deleted by redirection to German mediatisation. After bots have redirected all incoming links, this article may be changed to a disambiguation page or a redirection to Mediatization (media). Agnerf (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This should have been done a long time ago. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this page was first proposed more than five years ago. The article still has no valid references, and the topic is adequately covered by German mediatisation. There is now consensus for deletion. The latest discussion is only about the proper technical procedure, not whether to delete or not (User_talk:Curbon7#Mediatisation). No need for further discussion. I am now starting the process to delete by redirection/merging. I have saved the old text at Talk:Mediatisation/Deleted_text in case anybody is interested. I have fixed a few links to this page that should properly point to Mediatization (media). The remaining links should be changed automatically to German mediatisation. I will change this page to a disambiguation page when the incoming links have been fixed. The present talk page may be preserved. Agnerf (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the many incoming links to this page, most of them to German mediatisation, a few to Mediatization (media). Links from talk pages remain. 'Mediatisation' now redirects to a disambiguation page. Agnerf (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]