Clarification on "their"
Hi, I just want to inform you that their is not just a plural it is also used to mean belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex as english lacks a separate common-gender third person singular pronoun.
- Example: "she heard someone blow their nose loudly"
I realise english may not be your first language, so I hope this clarifies it for you.
- User:B.Lameira, what is your problem with this on the East-Timor article? I'm not saying is't wrong, although some consider it to be but I do say it's unusual and unclear for most (even native) users of the English language. Your initial revert has been challenged. Are you going to open a discussion on that talkpage about how best to use the English language? Remember that lots of people who may not be realizing this particular innovation in English (including native speakers) read these articles as well. Clear language is better. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposal on change to the article: Parliamentary system
Hi again, I was thinking of making a bigger change to the parliamentary system page and since you seem to have taken an interest in this article and broader topics of systems of governance and politics in general, I thought I'd ask what you think.
The current categories ("Westminster" vs “Western European”/” Consensus”) are not really that helpful as there are so inconsistent, like Ireland(where I'm from) is designated “Westminster” despite a long history of coalition and/or minority governments, even a grand coalition of the two largest parties in more recent times.
I think if we are going to split them into subtypes (though you could also argue not to split them at all and just merge everything), it would make more sense to split the parliamentary systems by voting system, either some form of majoritarian(winner-take all) voting or some form of proportional representation(multi-winner) system.
Have a look at my sandbox for a draft version.
- Hi @Ranníocóir: While discussing another topic with B.Lameria I noticed this proposal. The best place to discuss this would be Talk:Parliamentary system. My first thoughts are the voting system used by a parliament and the outcome (majority/minority government) of elections should be characterised separately from the legal/constitutional model of the parliament (Westminster/Western-European model as described in the article). For example, the outcome of elections can change depending on the vote of the electorate and the voting system itself can be changed in a relatively straight-forward way (e.g. United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011). The legal/constitutional model of the parliament however arises from its history, the constitution in place and all the conventions that have developed, so is a separate, more fundamental, characteristic. Whizz40 (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Whizz40:, you mentioned the electoral system could be changed, I don't see how that's relevant as in most countries almost everything from the big and fundamental to the small and not-so-significant could also be changed by a referendum too.
- Can you name one fundamental legal/constitutional difference (as in not a convention) common among all Westminster systems that differentiates a Westminster system from a consensus system?
- Also with historical conventions, like more of an adversarial style, the only legal/constitutional difference this could be attributed to, again come from the way seats are allocated, so again comes back to the voting system.
- Surely the single most fundamental legal/constitutional difference that will determine the parliamentary style and how a parliament operates is the way the seats are allocated.
- Though I think you have a point that it should be mentioned as it could be misleading otherwise(the original version is misleading too, in the opposite way), but under a historical context instead as it seems the only common theme that unites countries designated as Westminster system is a historical one not a legal/constitutional one, therefore this should be moved to the history section.(When editing I've also decided that the history section might better be called "Conceptual and institutional development")
- I've made a new draft in my sandbox, please have a look if you want.
- Also, as per your suggestion I've created a new section in Talk:Parliamentary system, and I will link in this discussion, so if you’d like to reply again to this discussion, please do so there and thanks for your input. Ranníocóir (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Tunisia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I see you reverted a message, saying in your edit summary that non-administrators weren't able to warn you. Well, I AM an administrator, and I'm telling you that anyone can warn you. It's good you're discussing the issue, but the next revert from either of you will have consequences. Work it out calmly. Katietalk 20:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi - Presidential Vs Presidential Vs Parliamentary Republics
Hi B.Lameira, I am LionsRule125, I have noticed that you have made changes to lots of pages of countries that regarding their system of government, which is good and I encourages you to do so. But we need to get some facts clear.
1) The way the Head of state is elected does not determine the type of government. In most Parliamentary Systems the President who is the head of state, is elected by the legislature, but this does not mean there are countries that elect their head of state with a popular vote. For example countries like the Republic of Ireland, Turkey, Iceland and Finland are all Parliamentary republics, that elect their President with a popular vote.
2) In Presidential Systems, the cabinet members cannot be a part of the legislature so the executive is separate from the legislature
3) You can not really call a country that has a executive President and a ceremonial Prime Minister responsible to the legislature, a Parliamentary Republic, because a Parliamentary system does not have space for both a executive President and a Prime minister
- @LionsRule125: I will try to answer you briefly. 1) Actually, while it does not determine, the lack of direct or indirect election (also includes leader of the winning party become president, like in Angola) for the head of the state disqualifies a system from being either presidential or semi-presidential. 2) While I agree this happens in presidential systems, the classification of systems of government is based on the power balance between the head of state and the legislature, and the checks and balances. 3) I have no objections to this point, there are prime ministers, that are weak and conduct government business in parliament. But the existence of a prime ministerial post by itself does not make the system semi-presidential either.
- And they are not facts, they are your POV. My opinion does not matter, as also yours does not, either. Articles on Wikipedia aim to represent what is written by reliable sources and is not intended to represent your point of view. You have been previously warned that you should not edit in order to write your point of view, giving no (reliable) sources and interpreting primary sources, producing original research, which undermines its verifiability, as you did recently on the case of Mongolia. Thanks. --B.Lameira (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)