User talk:Fumehime

Fumehime, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fumehime! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cedratine

"The information we have says that it was produced since the times of ancient carthage." Sure, and I'm Mickey Mouse. People make up stuff all the time, and especially to sound like what they're selling is part of a sacred tradition. Is there a single solid citation to a scholarly work - not a tourist guide or a website - saying that the people of Carthage - a pre-Christian civilisation who certainly had no monks - consumed lemon liqueur? Or even that the Romans did? Blythwood (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look i removed, the punic mention, no need to go array, also i don't see in what a lemon liqueur couldn't have been consumed during the antiquity, distillation was already known.Fumehime (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted list item

Parliamentary republic

President of Tunisia is not elected by parliament. Take this into account, next time, when providing cover to an editor who makes uncited changes to maps and articles. --B.Lameira (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, and you should know, that except for south africa, parliamentary republics, do elect their president directly, have you even read the map properly ?Fumehime (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must be the reason why wrote, about the election of head of state "Parliament, by majority". --B.Lameira (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution also states that the President shall jointly decide in cooperation with the cabinet, foreign and defence policies. The article Tunisia is referenced with a scientific paper, which is certainly more accurate than your uncited assertions. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In parliamentary republics, the president is elected directly too do you understand now ? Also, mixt parliamentary is still parliamentaryFumehime (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Article, even says "exécutive bicéphale". What is this, if it's not semi-presidential, then? Premier-presidential system is not to be confused with parliamentary system. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the parliament have to approve the government for it to start working, it is parliamentaryFumehime (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary confidence does not define a system as "pure" parliamentary. Stop with your edit war. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary confidence exists in France, Portugal, Russia, etc. Because, otherwise, these systems would be presidential. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to apply your logic, we would classify Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Israel, Ireland, Greece, Turkey and more as semi-presidentialFumehime (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of semi-presidential is the following:

“

A semi-presidential system is a system of government in which a president exists along with a prime minister and a cabinet, with the latter two being responsible to the legislature of a state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of state, who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead, and from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence.

”

--B.Lameira (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that: Head of state, section parliamentary system, the situation of Tunisia correspond to the standard parliamentary model, but not the non executive one. Also, Tunisa's president has far less power than the french one for instance.Fumehime (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, one or another, disagree. Why you do not take into account the scientific paper given? And, you know, the French president has more power than those that are constitutionally given to him or her. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that you don't cite, you never cite, at least with credible references, as I have already seen in other edits made by you. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article, you've provided focuses mainly on egypt and does little note or reference about tunisia, also it goes in contradiction with how tunisia is presented by its officials^[1] and how other articles present it. I also reccomend that you use french references, since that's the first foreign language there , not English one that are never checked back.^[2]^[3].Fumehime (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What should count is the opinions of political scientists and not what journalists write about this, because it was Duverger, a political scientist himself, who invented the term. Look at this page: http://www.semipresidentialism.com/?p=3015 --B.Lameira (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Egypt and Tunisia, what you just said is made up by yourself. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation, if Tunisia's official call it a parlementary system, then it is just considered as a form of parlementary as others, pure parlementary are rare and most of the parliamentary republics have a parliamentary mix system, as from the wikipedia page i gave you "In reality, numerous variants exist to the position of a head of state within a parliamentary system. The older the constitution, the more constitutional leeway tends to exist for a head of state to exercise greater powers over government, as many older parliamentary system constitutions in fact give heads of state powers and functions akin to presidential or semi-presidential systems, in some cases without containing reference to modern democratic principles of accountability to parliament or even to modern governmental offices. Usually, the king had the power of declaring war without previous consent of the parliament."Fumehime (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The president of the United States also must have the approval of the Congress to declare war. Oops! Don't look at this only by the presidential powers. And just because some people speak of a parliamentary system, doesn't mean it is. This occurs with several political parties who claim to have an ideology, but in reality they have another, which is cited often on scientific papers. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look given the dubious organisation of powers of the new constitution, it just fits more the parliamentary system even more when we consider the Tunisian constitution of 1959, also Tunisia is generally accepted as a parliamentary republic today, some might disagree but that's just how it is, there is no clear model to say what's black from what's white but at least we know that the parliament is supreme of the head of the governmentFumehime (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But accepted by whom? Who are the political scientists with published work, that classify Tunisia as "parliamentary" instead of semi-presidential? That's what I am asking you since the beginning, and you were still not able to answer me. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Stop attacking me, like you did recently. Personal attacks are not desirable. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

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.
It's good that you're now discussing the issue, but the next revert from either of you will have consequences. Work it out calmly. Katie^talk 20:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/afrique/les-cles-des-premieres-elections-legislatives-libres-de-tunisie_1614685.html

[2] ttp://www.iris-france.org/docs/kfm_docs/docs/obs-monde-arabe/ben-abesselem-fvrier-2014.pdf

[3] ttp://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/video/2016/01/14/tunisie-cinq-ans-apres-la-revolution-le-desenchantement_4847453_3212.html

[1]

[2]

[3]