Talk:De jure/Archive 1

Creating a category of "minimally de jure" legal articles
Does anyone else think it might be acceptable to infuse the wikipedia with a collection of case studies under a name such as "minimally de jure"? The collection would, of course, be of case studies and reigning theories in the optimizal minimalization of juridicity. Disciplines relevant though of course only peripherally (which is why most of the wikifications on this page are gratuitous and signal degrading...my apologies) would not be limited to accounting, actuarial science, labor economics and &#91;The previous unsigned comment was posted by, at 15:27, June 27, 2002 (UTC)&#93;

Article title
This phrase is almost always written in English as "de jure". The article should be under that title. If the objection is that "J" isn't a Latin letter, then, instead of calling it a Latin phrase, we can say it's a phrased derived from Latin or a bastardization of Latin or whatever is technically correct. The fact remains, though, that "de jure" is the phrase commonly used in English (278,000 English hits on Google compared to 10,000 for "de iure"), it's the phrase people would almost always enter in a search, and it's the phrase that all the links point to. JamesMLane 04:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Everyking 05:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No one having expressed a reason to have the article at "De iure", I've moved it back. JamesMLane 21:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, must be "de iure". Latin, iuris, -is = a law. Same: ius ad bellum, ius in bello etc. Bocianski 06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "J" doesn't exist in latin! Bocianski 06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "J" exists in English, though -- and this is the English-language Wikipedia. If you Google both spellings, you'll find many more hits for "de jure".  Wikipedia naming conventions direct us to use the most common name.  Therefore, the article title is correct.  In reviewing the page history, however, I see that the passage noting the classical Latin spelling was lost in the course of an insufficiently careful anti-vandalism edit.  I've restored that passage.  I hope that answers your objection. JamesMLane t c 07:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this not answers my objection. De jure is ordinarry mistake, cames from laziness. We shouldn't to strenghten it. Hugo Grotius wrote De iure praedae and De iure belli ac pacis libri tres and we can't change its titles only for ours whims. Samuel von Pufendorf wrote Elementorum iurisprudentiae universalis and we not change it. Same, de iure is phrase and we can't change it. Is no reason to change because this is english wikipedia. Why all villages from all world site are oryginal names? Why all names are oryginal? Why in Polish wikipedia we don't translate name Bush into pl:Krzew, althought that means same and this is Polish wikipedia? It's nonsense, don't you see it? So, why typical latin phrase must be writed with error, only for idlers? I think that we should correct it and eventually make a section with name's explanation. And we can also to make redirect from de jure into de iure. Bocianski 23:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bush is a name. "De jure" is a phrase. Or should we spell soup as suppa because soup is derived from the Teutonic word of suppa? The fact is that "de jure" is by far the most common spelling of this phrase in English, and policy dictates that that is what we will follow. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * De jure is an English legal term of art, derived from Latin de iure; it is a loan phrase, and like loan phrases and word between any two languages, it has been transliterated into the recipient language's preferred orthography (cf. futbol in Spanish). This is neither weird nor wrong, it's just how language works. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: See also the non-English versions at the bottom of the source code of the page; looks to me like a majority of languages that have borrowed this term from Latin prefer "j" over "i". &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Du jour?
Is "de jour" the same as "De jure"? JDR 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No. As the article states:
 * The Latin de jure should not be confused with the French du jour which translates to "of the day", as, for example, in soupe du jour.
 * "De jour" would be grammatically incorrect, if I'm remembering my high-school French correctly. It would mean "of day".  The correct meaning is "of the day", which would be de le jour, but in French de le becomes du. JamesMLane 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Vous avez raison. I actually came to this talk page to comment on how absurd it seemed to me that the page even needed to mention that this was different from "du jour", but I guess it's not so obvious. --Saforrest 06:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * People aren't born knowing either phrase. They won't learn what these similar-sounding phrases mean unless someone tells them, and the someone might as well be Wikipedia. JamesMLane 08:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why must there be a mention of the fact that "de jure" is not same as "du jour"? Only two of the letters match. Du jure is neither the same as, say, cabbage. &#91;The previously unsigned comment was added by at 14:23, March 19, 2006 (UTC)&#93;
 * Because people can and will mistake the terms.--RLent 21:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not people, americans. &#91;The previously unsigned comment was added by at 03:45, June 14, 2006 (UTC)&#93;
 * Yeah Americans are so stupid, thats why we swept the Nobel prizes this past year..... &#91;The previously unsigned comment was added by  at 13:09, November 24, 2006 (UTC)&#93;
 * I don't think Wikipedia should specifically cater to ignoramuses. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a native English speaker (but not an American) and also speak French, and do not consider "du jour" appearing in the article as a form of disambiguation to be folly. People will pronounce the two the same, and subsequently confuse them... Chris 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Wikipedia goes out of its way to disambiguate where confusion seems likely to arise.  If someone has a problem with that they should take it up at WP:VP, not attack individual articles. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Du jour's presence was absoulutely ludicrious. Goodbye.,..  &#91;The previously unsigned comment was added by  at 13:10, November 24, 2006 (UTC)&#93;


 * I *AM* an American, and (I believe) reasonably literate. I have seen "de jure" and "du jour" and - because I do NOT use the terms every day - I am prone to confuse them though I do know that they are actually separate and distinct things.


 * I came to Wikipedia looking for "du jure" [sic], sensing that something was not right...


 * Quite frankly, I am glad that Wikipedia is not run by "ignoramuses" that have the self centered thought that everyone should be perfectly literate in every possible language all the time. (As these detractors seem to believe about themselves...)


 * The folks, (and the contributors), here at Wikipedia realize that people do need a hand-up at times. This is the best and highest calling for any reference work.  That Wikipedia aspires to this standard of excellence is outstanding!


 * I found "de jure" - and even better - the correct phrase that I wanted to use, (du jour). I also learned things about "de jure" that I did not yet know about.


 * I realize that no good deed goes unpunished - however it is my sincere wish that the folks at Wikipedia - as well as the many generous contributors - ignore the peanut gallery and continue with this excellent work.

Jharris1993 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the place where the 'du jour' is mentioned to a place more conforming to the wikipedia standards. I think it had a much to prominent place in the article. --Jmzeeman (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jmzeeman, it still appears rather prominently at the top. By the way, although it was included with the best intentions, the mention of soupe du jour here has an unintentional comic effect. I was so distracted by it, I clicked over to this discussion page in order to report it as vandalism. May I respectfully suggest that merely defining a term is the role of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia? 24.211.220.127 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)simonlefranc@hotmail.com

If the 'du jour' disambiguation must remain - and I guess that's a question for someone better versed in Wikipedia policy - does it really need to be 'soupe du jour'? Surely 'du jour' would suffice? Have been sorely tempted to add an additional "nor to be confused with Dutch supermarket chain Super de Boer" which could lead to "not to be confused with Frank de Boer" and so on until all we have is an extended game of Chinese whispers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcakey (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We could substitute a hatnote redirecting the reader to the article on Du jour, but at the moment, as the red link indicates, we have no such article -- and we might never have one, because it might get deleted as "dicdef". Instead of the current hatnote, we could substitute something like this:
 * Not to be confused with "du jour", as in soupe du jour.
 * I don't know whether the "Distinguish" template now in use can handle such a complication, though. JamesMLane t c 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea. A quick scan of the "Distinguish" template suggests that it can't handle that complication. In the absence of will/ability/balls to change the template, would Not to be confused with "du jour". be acceptable? Mrcakey (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is possible to confuse the two terms as they have a completely different pronounciation. It's the filthy barbarians' fault if they don't know how to properly pronounce Latin.

dictionary entry?
What makes this article any different from a long winded dictionary entry? Pdbailey 02:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think even if this article is the same, that there should still be a direct link to the dictionary, because this is an important word as well as a word in which not everyone knows (the Latin words are the most common for people not to know since they don't teach Latin or Greek roots in school anymore). This can possibly be added to with etymology, and history of the word (assuming Wiktionary doesn't already have this). --- Anonymous 14:33, 30 July 2007 (GMT +06:00)

belle de jour
A user just added a link to the film belle de jour that I don't think is apropos and I propose removing it. Pdbailey 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "disambiguation page" would be more appropriate? Jharris1993 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with de facto?
Someone added the comment that "it has been suggested that this be merged with de facto" (or some such) and inviting discussion:

Opinion: I would not do it.

Discussion:

Though de jure and de facto are related - they're NOT the same - and placing them in the same article would really do a disservice to both. Separating the two articles allows them to be developed independently, especially since the two phrases have interesting points about them as individual phrases that can only be developed within the context of a separate article.

If - for whatever reason - the two articles ARE merged, I would bifurcate the article in to two major sections - and then create page-links to the article itself.

However - bifurcating the article like this would simply be a clumsy way of placing two distinct articles on the same page.

Respectfully Submitted, Jharris1993 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the terms are contradictory and placing them in the same article under de facto would be confusing, also because de facto has a much broader use.--Jmzeeman (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they should go in one article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Articles are given to topics, not words/terms.  These two terms are closely related and often used together in the same sentence, so I think they form a topic that would be better discussed in a unified article rather than two repetitive articles (one OK, one mediocre). --Gronky (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

decision, no merger, if you want to start a new merge proposal, please see WP:PM

Pronunciation
Hello, please can someone add pronunciation info about the word (with IPA and / or audio file). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CutterX (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, Inc., has done this for you, helpfully providing two alternate and equally valid pronunciations for the term. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/. 24.211.220.127 (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)simonlefranc@hotmail.com


 * I second this; could someone please add a pronunciation guide for this term? Thanks.  Spiral5800 (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal portal (Azerbaijan). On-line legal consultation. Portal for lawyers and those who want to know law

"on the other hand..."
Is it just me or is this article currently written all to one side: it seems to be all about de facto, as if de jure means "by a law that is not necessarily followed." Or do I not know what de jure means? From the beginning section, through the examples, it's all about how something might be the law but that law is not observed de facto. Is it correct to say that murder is proscribed de jure and de facto? Because it's my sense that most de jure laws are followed de facto, but that POV is not represented in this article. And the sentence that translates it as "in principle" seems like a very weak sense of the word, as if "in principle, murder is against the law." That maybe the sense where de jure most often gets trotted out, but this article leaves open the question of what it actually means. 96.224.167.176 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will try to be clearer: We know that "theory" differs from "practice". But just saying "in theory" leaves out the detail that the theory in question is the established law of some potentate. The example I do like is the one of the man in Egypt being a "de jure" viceroy, but a "de facto" dictator. It makes the distinction between the world as seen on paper at the seat of the Ottoman Empire and the world, "as it exists", on site in Eqypt. "De facto" is not useful as a synonym for "in fact", as when discussing that it is a fact that there are laws against murder. The best use is in highlighting the differences in authority and power: power as described in law, often at a remote location, and power as it is exercised, on site. Often claims are continued "in law" only for reasons of pomposity and appearance, as when the King of England claimed to be the King of France long after Henry 5th, by virtue of the Treaty of Troyes.( Martin | talk • contribs 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

Titles -- de jure/De facto
The title of the "De facto" article is first-word-capitalized. The title of the "de jure" article is not. I find this disturbing. Vexes my sense of symmetry and seems kinda' awkward and embarrassing for Wikipedia (as they're likely to often be referenced together). I propose we pick 'one way or the other' and stick with it for both. I personally don't have a strong preference as to which, as long as they match. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)