User talk:Oranges Juicy

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oranges Juicy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oranges Juicy. You have new messages at Feinoha's talk page.
Message added 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feinoha  Talk 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceaușescu "regime" discussion

(Moved here.)

Hello. I have reverted at Nicolae Ceaușescu because there was no NPOV issue. When the word "regime" is used in place of terms such as "presidency" or "government" as had been in this article unsparingly, it becomes a label. All I did was rewrite most of the sentences. There had been 20 mentions of "regime" but I only changed 19 of them; I found one to be legit in that it was part of a quote. I've tried to raise this subject in the past but it has attracted very little feedback. It appears that most people like to use this term for unfavourable leaders and periods within a state's history. Normally the very mention of the "such and such regime" is enough to betray the publisher's bias since what follows will never be complimentary to the system that is being referred to. This means that any proponent of the system in question would have a valid response to his antagonistic publisher. If you would like links as to how the term "regime" is known to be a loaded term, I can link these to you, but for now I'll guide you to one of our articles: see Loaded language#Examples. --OJ (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

PS. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#Obama regime where I left a comment shortly after my first edit. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very concerned with your reason for reverting the edit. You seem to believe the term "regime" is not permissible on this project. You are misinformed. As for your concern that it is used for "unfavourable leaders?" What is an "unfavourable leader" and "unfavourable" to whom? However, while this project does seek to represent both majority and minority viewpoints, it does not whitewash articles to treat all viewpoints equally. Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE. More specifically, if you Google "Ceaușescu's regime" you'll see several non-Wikipedia sources. If you Google "Ceaușescu" & "regime", you'll see even more. The article only reflects those sources. Your own admission, that you "only changed" 19 of 20 uses of the word "regime," violates WP:POV. Please read it. You can't use this project to impose your own views, especially when the word you dislike is commonly used. I also believe your edit, and by extension your position, merits further discussion in the appropriate forum. X4n6 (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

All right thanks for the reply. First of all, I have never denied that sources use the word "regime" nor have I stated that the term is not permissible. If you look across the site you'll notice that on a few occasions, the word is used properly to reflect what it means but for more than 90% of the time, it is used as a pejorative label by an editor seeking to disparage the system in question, and it is all too common that this editor will hide behind the "sources use it" argument. For the record, sources may also refer to some leaders as tyrants and as such, there is no problem with an editor inserting this information. However, problems will arise after an editor makes a redaction to refer to the person as president and then the original editor reverts to "tyrant". Your first question is what is an unfavourable leader, and to whom is he unfavourable?. To me, the likes of Barrack Obama is an unfavourable leader as were his predecessors because I do not support the western states as they stand. A source such as RT will often refer to the Obama regime or the Washington regime. CNN however will never employ this term but it will speak of the Putin regime or the Moscow regime which Russian media would never use. The final question is whether any representatives of a system will make self-references using "regime". If they do not, then the term is blatantly loaded - no two ways about it. And as I said, unlike editors here, publishers have the freedom to sensationalise and this is why they can refer to regimes as well as to tyrants and other terms. I believe this rationale is good enough to deem "regime" inappropriate where alternatives exist.

You have referred to my replacement terms such as "government" to be NPOV. Whilst I generally appreciate that the new choice of words may be deemed breaches of NPOV, I require some more information from you over this one. If you believe that within the 19 amendments that the words I have chosen are inappropriate then I'd like to know which words you believe better fit the examples. Now obviously this is even difficult for me because it would be a case by case assessment. My questions for you are these which follow:

1) Do you believe that when referring to a body of people with powers that regime and a government are two different things to the point that in country A it is a government but in country B it is a regime, and that following "democratic" revolution in country B that country B has made a transition from regime to government the same way that a kingdom can become a republic through changes?

If the answer is "yes", then do you believe this subsection to be incorrectly labelled?. If so, do you believe the correct course of action is to go on a mission to replace "government" or "administration" with the word "regime"?

If the answer is "yes" then can you provide sources to show that "government" and "administration" are a breach of NPOV?

If the answer is "yes" then what do you believe the writers in the following citations are actually referring to when mentioning "government"? [1], [2], [3], [4]

2) Do you believe that the Ceaușescu government and Ceaușescu regime are two different things which are both legitimate in their own right? If so, when should we use one and when should be use the other?

3) Why do you feel terms such as "administration" and "government" are examples of loaded language and that somehow a term that one government calls another but never calls its own self should be the appropriate term?

If you can satisfy me here, I'll be the first to revert the changes I have made over the past months. --OJ (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The same batch of questions apply to the more general term "rule" (e.g. life under the Communist regime vs Communist rule). Again, sources for "rule" are easy to find so I just need to know whether rule and regime mean different things, if so which do we use and when? Or is "rule" considered POV and if so why? etc. --OJ (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your response makes the problem quite clear. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and function of this project. Clearly you believe Wikipedia is a publication that encourages individual editorial opinion and expression. But it is not and it does not. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. Then review WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU. You are certainly entitled to any belief system. But this is not the forum for you to promote your own views. See WP:NOR. This project only republishes reliably sourced information. To be clear, your unilateral removal of the word "regime" for no other reason that your subjective bias regarding that term is what constitutes POV violations - not to the words you replaced "regime" with. So your tangential screed entirely missed the point, so I will not follow down your rabbit hole. No one cares about your personal views regarding Obama - just as your views about Ceaușescu should not be evident in your edits - especially, when you fail to provide reliable sources in support of them. If you can conform your contributions to that which you can reliably source, the project certainly welcomes those contributions - as long as you accept your work will be reviewed by other editors. But if you are only prepared to contribute personal beliefs, opinions and just contribute to be doctrinaire, that's considered POV pushing and this project is probably not for you. Those efforts are likely better utilized elsewhere. They will just get reverted here. In the relatively short time you've been here, you've already been given some tools of trust indicating that you have some knowledge of this project and how it works. So surely you know this. X4n6 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Oranges Juicy. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. X4n6 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)