Talk:De facto

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 April 15. The result of the discussion was keep.

I tried to split the difference and would encourage you two to work this out here. I'll start you out,

• I don't like "in fact" which is too literal a translation and "in practice" seems better, this is not a great argument.
• In the sentence, "English is the de jure sole official language in twenty-seven individual states of the United States." you can go either way on the comma after "de jure", but sentence is just awful. I'd suggest rewriting it.
• In the sentence, "De facto leaders need not hold a constitutional office, and may exercise power in an informal or autocratic manner." I don't see why "or autocratic" belongs there and would suggest keeping it out.
• There is no reason to delete the link to desuetude.

Hope the helps get you started. Pdbailey (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear constructive criticism, I'd agree with you on many things but autocratic is affiliated with de facto rule, desuetude, there is already a link to it, may be you had some other link in mind? {{{ BoxingWear - BWear - Miranda }}} (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autocratic is, in fact, not "affiliated" with de facto rule. Of course I'm unsure why this merits debate since Mirandmir is in fact the notorious "George Reeves vandal" who has been banned under a variety of names, including Vesa, Projects, BoxingWear, Mellowyellowdog, etc.MKil (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

That is totally not true as I have nothing to do with George Reeves, Mirandamir that is me as boxingwear, the above user mkil is leader of notorious deadly mafia that goes by the name of Vario Crew, his dad was Paul Vario Sr, he is Paul Vario jr, as he has nothing else to do in his life but revert things, that's all he does. De Facto is affiliated when it comes to terms of de facto autocratic rule as it says CLEARLY under Kim il Sung page, he had autocratic rule, proves my point that real vandal mkil has no idea what he is talking about. 64.24.41.164 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are using an anonymous IP to talk for Mirandamir and admit that you are using sockpuppets to evade your ban, BoxingWear?MKil (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Boxingwear is Mirandamir, contributions have been good, mkil is mafia member who wants to exact revenge as he has beenproven wrong on tons of articles from a to z, he keeps on reverting everything and doing it on purpose, he cant take it when he is proven wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.41.164 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you admit that Mirandamir is a sockpuppet of banned user BoxingWear. That means Mirandamir shouldn't be editing here.

As for me being proved wrong, I'd like to see any evidence of that.MKil (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Duh, it says on my page since the first day I am who I say I am, autocratic means self rule, duh, it's synonymous word, this guy will always find a way to screw somebody... 64.24.41.164 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he finds smallest mistake he will make it look as it it's rock of gibralter if he knows what that means... {{{ BoxingWear - BWear - Miranda }}} (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if mr mkil wants things incorrect, fine, i am trying to fix, he is not, no college or university is now allowed to use wikipedia as sources because of people like him... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.41.164 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not george reeves, vesa, projects, mellowyellowdog or whoever, my session logged out so i had no idea i was editting under, 64, duh!

Autocratic means self rule, duh, it's synonymous word, this guy will always find a way to screw somebody... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandamir (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirandamir or whatever sock you are hiding behind: I know you have trouble with English, but because autocratic means self-rule does not have anything to do with de facto. It's unnecessary. It doesn't belong. It screws up the sentence.MKil (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You may be partially right but autocratic is associated with de facto rule as these rulers do what they want...{{{ BoxingWear - BWear - Miranda }}} (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defacto in itself means more than autonomy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.77 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is about a term of law, any statement that de facto is "not necessarily" the opposite of de jure needs to be cited; this is not presently the case. De facto, when speaking about a term of law, has never, to my knowledge, been used with the phrase "not necessarily" or any equivalent when contrasting with de jure. These authoritative sources do not include this distinction, and it should not be present here unless there is a cite:

• http://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/defacto.html
• http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20064666~isCURL:Y~pagePK:64141683~piPK:64141620~theSitePK:502184,00.html

24.251.197.52 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm befuddled about the phrase "All citizens shall have the right to oppose resistance to those committing the acts of force"; it appears to contradict the intent of Article 36. This is the actual text from the link, but I find it difficult to believe that the framers of that constitution bothered to put in a clause to protect the allies of those who use violence to overthrow the constitutional government. It seems more plausible that the original intent was to provide explicit protection for those who resist overthrow of the constitutional government and that tere was a typo. perhaps in the english translation. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of Argentine law or Spanish could check this wording. Wcoole (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the "

Thanks for bringing that up. Now it's bugging me, too. Willondon (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:  } --

talk) 13:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sweet relief [1]. Willondon (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, I prefer the lower case title for both articles. The discrepancy arose with a change to the "de facto" article, removing the "lowercase title" template. [2]. I restored the lowercase template to both articles [3] [4].

As long as there's harmony. Willondon (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 10:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Veverve, just a comment that it is not necessarily the case that de facto is generally italicized anymore in English. Several style guides, for instance, clearly state this to be the case ([5], [6]). It's not explicitly stated, but the same thing is done elsewhere, including Chicago Manual of Style and nytimes. I'm sure you can find any number of examples pointing the other way too, but I think it's unfair to say unconditionally that it *should* always be italicized, as sources clearly seem to disagree. I'm fine with either way, honestly, just in case you weren't aware. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what this was originally discussing, but I'm adding myself onto here to say: I don't have an opinion on whether the term should be italicized, but there needs to be consistency between the article (italicized currently) and the article title (currently not italicized). :3 F4U (they/it) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh dear, this is the third topic here on this.)

De facto and de jure should in all likelihood not be italicized. As per

etc., do not require italicization. Likewise, musical tempo markings, and terms like minuet and trio

, are in normal upright font. Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries.

I would almost put money on the proposition that de facto and de jure have been included in every major English dictionary ever published. Thoughts? Remsense聊 18:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually! I think there's a conflation of two uses of italics here: italics per se to indicate a foreignism, and italics to indicate emphasis, which is treated separately on Wikipedia via {{em}}, etc.

Because when writing, particular emphasis falls so often on de facto and de jure as the hinge point of a sentence, that's being conflated with the use of italics for foreignisms. I think putting emphasis on de facto is perfectly fine. (But it should be marked up as such!) Remsense聊 18:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a sentence stating that de facto is used in Australia and New Zealand as a colloquial term, as the source cited in fact argued it was not a colloquial term and thus

The problem here is that this needs its own page or merging as well, under outcomes of relationships and also in other important relationship pages. 35.128.60.43 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]