this term is misrepresented in this article. this article refers to a de jure government, not a de facto one.
- Edited the article a bit to make proper corrections. Thot Prad, 03:29, 01 January, 2007
the article still reads as it did, a de facto government is the usurper, not the usurped. that is the de jure governmnet in the relationship, it leaves the article and the cardassian history page still incorrect in thier usage. I mean, jsut look at the latin, why would we call the government that is not doing the actual ruling "government in fact?"
- As per that wikipedia document: "When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates lawfully what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice."
As per this de facto page: " A de facto government is an administration in which all the attributes of its sovereignty have been transferred to another party via usurpation, which assert to act for them." In the case of cardassian history, my most recent examination of the page shows that someone has indeed corrected the error(it previously read that Damar was at the head of a de facto government), but that still leaves this page, which is utterly backwards.
I don't find this term mentioned anywhere in the transcripts. Also, this article seems to be purely original research/speculation about the status of Cardassian - Dominion relations. I therefore suggest a merge with Latin language. Kennelly (talk) 19:12, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see it or De jure mentioned in transcripts. It could be in an original script note, but I think a better merge might be at Government if it is not mentioned at all. This is analysis of a situation and giving it a name, then making an article under that name. Different from seeing, say, a rubber duck in a child's bedroom and giving it a name, despite it never being mentioned. One is an identifiable tangible visible object; the other is a concept. --LauraCC (talk) 19:18, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
- I can see that. Sorta like my prejudice and ignorance articles... But definitely don't merge with/mention on the Latin page (except maybe as a "see also") - the term wasn't mentioned by name and that's what generally goes in the Latin page. I still think this might go well at "government" - as it is, that page is pretty thin. --LauraCC (talk) 15:36, January 25, 2017 (UTC)