Talk:De facto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15/4/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
"... kilometre, which is the de jure standard for road distances in the United States". It is? (I've lived here all my life, and I've never seen it used on anything official.) Is there an example of a place it's used, or a reference to the law in question? I'm curious now.
Yep, the US government's official weights and measures are metric, including metres and kilometres (note that the official spelling is British, for some reason). But even though they tried to make a law requiring conversion to metric units some time in the 1970s, they couldn't convince the public of it and backed down. Still, metric is US official. RickK 23:21, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Nope. See "Metric Conversion at State Option" in TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Metric is annoying.
- I expect he spelling of metres and kilometres etc is spelt that way because that is the way it's spelt! It's not "British" usage, it's French, who invented the system. A meter is a device to measure something. By the way, metric isn't annoying, it's simple and easy. Chains, Furlongs, Gallons (US or Imperial)? are all annoying, and cause huge problems - look at the that NASA craft that went wrong because somebody thought it would be a great idea to specify something in grains per dram horsepower squared or somesuch. That error cost billions, a measure of money. Which is already metric, and you don't complain about that , do you? ;-) Graham 00:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- But Americans SPELL them meter, kilometer. For some reason, the government decided that not only were they going to force them down our throats, they were going to force non-US spelling down our throats. RickK 05:12, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- People are stupid. lysdexia 09:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well this is certainly some enlightened debate. Cigarette 15:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The spellings, like the measures, are standardised. If Americans spell them differently, I've no idea why. The fact that the "official" usages use the correct spellings seems to indicate a bit of a split here, though. —Zootm 09:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- People are stupid. lysdexia 09:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Suggested merger
- oppose merger. De jure and de facto are different concepts. A reader who wants the full understanding of the distinction will need to read both articles, but many readers will be looking for information on one specific member of the pair. They shouldn't have to wade through all of the stuff about the other concept. JamesMLane 06:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose These are related yet distinct (and prevalent) concepts that should remain in separate articles. I would actually encourage the use in Wp of English translations for these terms (remember George Orwell's rules of writing?): "in law" (legal/juridical) and "in fact" (actual/factual), respectively. E Pluribus Anthony 07:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Just came here looking for de jure specifically, don't see the benefit of merging, the hyperlinks between the two work quite well as they are --Pluke 19:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Statement
I have removed the statement "There have been bids to change the U.S. to communism by G. W. Bush" for obvious reasons--Matt D 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Official languages of the Soviet Union
It is too simplistic to say that Russian was "the" de facto official language of the Soviet Union. Many of the various republics and such making up the USSR had their own official languages that were actively used. The claim should be reserved for the administrative level of Soviet state institutions. Perhaps someone knows a better example? LambiamTalk 03:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the person who wrote this section was confused over Poland, Finland and such. And they don't count.
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Suggested Deletion
- oppose deletion for all the same reasons given in the merger section above.--Mike18xx 08:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested Input
This stuff was useful, but not put in very well.
The law dictionaries of the world have a more precise definition that many researchers shirk as of the revealing nature of those definitions. This link provides clarity in that regard. http://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/defacto.html
Rape is a de facto act being unlawful while marital coitus is dejure, meaning lawful.
Deception is applied in the art of twisting definitions!
Maybe someone can fix it.Minnesota1 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
"Rape is defined as a de facto act while marital coitus is dejure." I don't understand what this sentence means at all. Marital sex is legally recognized and rape is... generally accepted practice? That can't be what you're trying to say. Conspire 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Various ongoing vandalization
The user 208.114.190.23 made a "contribution" to this page on 2006-09-13T15:11:27 which was negative, cynical and POV. Unfortunately, it was not correctly reverted and shreds of his edit have (through futile clean up efforts) mutated into of garbage statements like "de facto designates illegitimate action of what happens in practice (which has substantially been established as unlawful)." and "unlawful governor general". This user has a terrible bias that all de facto leaders are illegitimate by definition, as evidenced by his "contributions" to De facto head of state. For the record, he is also the one who made the statement about rape in the above section. If I had more time I would clean up the remnants of his legacy but I don't. I leave this note for someone to consider for future cleanup. -- abfackeln 12:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
