Talk:Ciocile

Communist government
What is wrong with this term "Communist government"? Is something incorrect about it?
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lowV7dxTKygC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=%22Romania%27s+communist+government%22&source=bl&ots=GxoDapR6SW&sig=BNrfC-uxZuo9RxHlWDct8e8euT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif97-VvKPLAhXFYJoKHT5NCD4Q6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=%22Romania's%20communist%20government%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vWBxXUEZ13EC&pg=PA50-IA437&lpg=PA50-IA437&dq=%22communist+government%22+romania&source=bl&ots=GmkwbYzkF-&sig=mI2N2w4G_90v0D0SeApHuoxuAMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGv7-5vKPLAhXiNJoKHVSJCEoQ6AEIdDAQ#v=onepage&q=%22communist%20government%22%20romania&f=false
 * http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/09/poetry
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Kz6_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22communist+government+began+to+assert%22&source=bl&ots=PejDakx5gs&sig=tiXZ-zCb1X_pQQqg7FG5oxQVOG4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA5e-pvaPLAhVkD5oKHYOfAaIQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=%22communist%20government%20began%20to%20assert%22&f=false

How many more references do you want?

--OJ (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can throw at you an equal or higher number of scholarly references of the highest caliber about the "communist regime":, , , , , , , . This proves nothing in particular, except that your claim that the term is "a label and a form of editorialising" is utterly baseless.
 * If we are to be overly precise (but there really is no need for it here), the change was probably adopted by the "legislature" rather than the "government".
 * You appear to assume that when an authoritarian regime performs technical or routine actions as opposed to criminal ones, the term "regime" is to be avoided. In fact, no such rule or practice exists (although there is no obligation to refer to it in every instance as a regime, either).
 * General practice is to retain existing usage. We refer to this entity as the "Communist regime" on a fairly consistent basis throughout the project, and there truly is no call to change it in two isolated cases. - Biruitorul Talk 03:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Response
All right, your argument is that "regime" is equally used by scholarly sources of the "highest calibre", the idea that this being editorialising is baseless and merely my claim, the most precise term would be legislature, that I assume when an "authoritarian regime" performs technical actions the term should be avoided despite no rule implying this. You also claim that retaining existing usage is the practice in general.

First of all, I provided a handful of sources to show you that "government" is used in contexts that others may use "regime", you did not provide a single argument to demonstrate that in these cases, government is being implied differently from regime. By contrast, your last remark on general practice sums up this viewpoint as it shows you are well aware that both terms are used, and have opted for "regime" on the basis that it may be used more than "government". To this end I cannot be certain whether you are using the terms synonymously, or whether you believe them to imply different things, so here is what I conclude on the strength of your argument.

1) Regime is not being used synonymously with "legislature", "administration", "government", etc. In this case, you need to provide sources to explain why it is the "regime" that is doing something rather than the governing body. You need to demonstrate why "government" is wrong, for instance, why suddenly being authoritarian turns an administration from a "government" into a "regime", and how suddenly the term "regime" is dropped once the authoritarian description has diminished; if you cannot do this then it makes just as much sense to say that in 1996 the names were changes "under the Iliescu regime". In fact, this theory is good enough to imply "a country has a regime when it is authoritarian, but when democracy is restored, it is no longer a regime". Either way I am not convinced by a single argument why it is better to use this term and how an article is improved by replacing the active governing body with the phrase "under the XYZ regime".

2) Regime is synonymous with "government", etc., and sources of the highest calibre use this term more so we should use it. If this is your argument is correct, then this is proof if proof be needed that the expression is nothing more than a label. When writing about Ceaușescu, various reliable sources may prefer "evil dictator" over "president" but that doesn't suddenly make it the name of the office, and common usage (per your last argument) does not trump WP:NPOV where we do not use similar terms for "US regime", "Obama regime" and the like. So once again, it is not a question of whether I say the term should be avoided, it is a question of whether replacing "government" with "regime" purely for synonymous reasons improves the article, and I have read no argument to suggest this is so.

If you have any more questions, or can throw any new light over something I am unaware, I welcome your points. --OJ (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't have the inclination to enter into a lengthy abstract polemic about "regime" versus "government" in the context of a banal page on a random Romanian commune. Perhaps take your concern to WT:WTW. I will just say the following: a) it is you who are doing the replacing: "regime" was on these pages, uncontested, since December 2010; b) "regime" is routinely used for this entity not only in academia, but also on this project, and there is no compelling reason to change it in two arbitrary cases, indeed it contravenes the guidelines; c) at this point, you are just trolling. - Biruitorul Talk 14:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Second response
In reply to your above remarks, yes indeed it had been I who made a copyedit some time ago believing it to be an improvement, the length of time a piece stays "uncontested" is not a licence for a permanent contract. As for "routinely used", that only means it is fine to insert the content in question, it is not an argument to build a fortification around it; and on a "free encyclopaedia anyone can edit", everybody has the right to make changes if they believe the edit to be in good faith, and what I am doing is evidently in good faith because my terms are just as "routine" as yours, except mine are official terms, yours are labels that entities never use to refer to themselves.

As for your "December 2010" theory, I'd like to remind you that as article creator, you do not WP:OWN this page, the rest of your comment does not exactly demonstrate why "regime" is better than "government", but seems to argue that what is good for one is good for the other.

Obviously I do not agree with your wording, however, as a final gesture of good faith, I am prepared to accept "Communist rule" which says everything your version does, is 100% routine, does not violate WP:NPOV and is free of labels. --OJ (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, Communist Romania redirects to Socialist Republic of Romania so is not required as a pipe target when displaying other content. --OJ (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ciocile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525041856/http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=3&id=622 to http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=3&id=622

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)