Difference between revisions of "Talk:Plurality opinion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Small edit, large effect: It's much clearer now, thanks!) |
m |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
the sentance reads ok to me , but its a bit confusing as written. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:21, 22 November 2008 (EST) | the sentance reads ok to me , but its a bit confusing as written. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:21, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ||
:Oh, okay! Thanks for the edit, it's much clearer now. That extra "because" confused me there since it made me think that something was ''missing''. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:30, 22 November 2008 (EST) | :Oh, okay! Thanks for the edit, it's much clearer now. That extra "because" confused me there since it made me think that something was ''missing''. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:30, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | ::This one is hard to explain in encyclopedic language. It is when you have 5 out of the nice justices saying that party X should win the case but when not all of them agree with why that is. You will then get a plurality opinion which is the opinion of most of the justices that say party X should win. Hope this helps (and that perhaps someone can think of a better way of putting it into the article) --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:49, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | ::: It may be wrong but I treat entries as intended for high school level and try to be as clear as possible. If that takes longer , or an example thats fine to me. The original text was fine but I hope I kept the meaning while making it easier to read. I tried to break it into two sentances , but couldnt :( cheers [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:16, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 04:16, November 23, 2008
What?
Is it just me, or is this sentence/article missing a few words? --AlanS 21:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)
the sentance reads ok to me , but its a bit confusing as written. Markr 22:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh, okay! Thanks for the edit, it's much clearer now. That extra "because" confused me there since it made me think that something was missing. --AlanS 22:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- This one is hard to explain in encyclopedic language. It is when you have 5 out of the nice justices saying that party X should win the case but when not all of them agree with why that is. You will then get a plurality opinion which is the opinion of most of the justices that say party X should win. Hope this helps (and that perhaps someone can think of a better way of putting it into the article) --WillB 22:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- It may be wrong but I treat entries as intended for high school level and try to be as clear as possible. If that takes longer , or an example thats fine to me. The original text was fine but I hope I kept the meaning while making it easier to read. I tried to break it into two sentances , but couldnt :( cheers Markr 23:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- This one is hard to explain in encyclopedic language. It is when you have 5 out of the nice justices saying that party X should win the case but when not all of them agree with why that is. You will then get a plurality opinion which is the opinion of most of the justices that say party X should win. Hope this helps (and that perhaps someone can think of a better way of putting it into the article) --WillB 22:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)