Talk:Consociationalism

message: *I only started wikifying this pages, alot more work to go. Especially for rewriting alot of the criticism paragraphs to make more sense. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: Interesting!  I learned some stuff while working on it.  So the grammer is now pretty much together.  Some content suggestions for someone who is more familiar with this subject.
*Explain "accommodation"
*Define "stable democracy"
*Citations!  Especially for the criticism sections and for quotes.
*When did Lijphart forulate the theory?
*In the Other Crit. section, who said what? Then give citations.
*I removed Calif./Alaska example -- find one from a consociationist society?
*What does "survival of arrangement" mean?  Clarify and add descriptors to Goals section.
*Rewrite Positives section.
*Did I mention, Citations!
Psora 04:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could best merge & move this article to the non-existence article Consensus democracy (Arend Lijphart), because that term would be more encompassing. We could base the article on Patterns of Democracy and earlier works of Lijphart, which I happen to be surrounded by. I actually am in the process of writing an article on Patterns of Democracy & consensus democracy and have a relatively short and useful introduction nearby. C mon 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyedit +/- done -- needs content work 

message: How is it pronounced? Is it like Association, with Con replacing the initial A? then alism?  --Red King (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: The reason I tagged  is that the "of" beside  does not explain if the politcal practitioners invented this, and the academic experts did not (apropo, "from") (academic experts did not invent this eariler); or does it mean that academic experts invented this, but that these academic experts did not know that politcal practitioners invented this , and vice versa.96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it's a quotation there's not much I can see that we can do to clarify. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Whole Edit Summary Inwhole That I Did Not Get Enough Room To Fill Out 

message: Since devolution in 1999 in the United Kindom, in which Scotland and Wales were granted their own parliament and assembly respectivly, Britain has been considered by some as a consociational democracy, although England and other areas like Cornwall have yet to receive their own indepedent parliament or assembly.--24.126.188.244 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference betwen federalism and consociationalism, although the latter often involves the former. When you say "considered by some", do you have any sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK? federation?

message: Wikipedia articles should start with the definition of the thing they talk about. This one doesn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.110.29.67 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I'm surprised that the Province of Canada from 1841 to 1867 isn't listed as an example. A quick scan of the literature suggests that the first example was in 1917 in the Netherlands. So what am I missing here - given the obvious parallels of Canada's Joint Premiers to Northern Ireland's First Minister and deputy First Minister. Obviously we can't list it, without any literature supporting this.
Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that does look like consociationalism given the double majority system. Let's look for citations. Bondegezou (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example - Province of Canada - an example surely? 

message: An IP editor (not signed on) has twice edited  the article to delete properly cited material without any explanation, has made opinionated (though arguably true but uncited) comments about Lebanon, and has added a long OpEd about Colombia that was unsupported by citations. I have reverted in each occasion per wp:BRD. 
I invite the editor to stop the wp:edit war and use this talk page to make the case for the changes they want to make. Provided that the changes are supported by citation and proportionately sized, there should be no issue. --Red King (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on 30 November and 1 December