|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regime article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.|
I may have missed a previous discussion on this topic, but I'd just like to query the use of the acute é in the (English) word 'regime'. I've never seen it except in very old texts. I notice that the entry for Regime change lacks the accent. I realise there's a redirect from Regime to Régime, so it's not the end of the world - just a minor query really. Toby W 11:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- According to our "most common name" rule, you're quite right - it should be at regime. A Google search gives far more instances of "regime" than "régime", especially if you exclude French (which we should, since the language of the article is English). The majority of the links to the article go to "regime" rather than "régime", too. I've moved the article accordingly. -- Vardion 12:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is probably not sustainable to treat this and similar issues as an exact science. The é is probably the most foreign used character in the English language so I know how to get it in. But when we come to the name French name Francois - I don't know where the c with cedille is - we cannot sustain it. The 'facade' should also have a cedille and is normally dropped, too. And then there is the Fuhrer, Fuehrer or Führer? We have to play this by ear.
regime as "pejorative" is original researchEdit
I checked both the American Heritage and Encarta dictionaries and dictonary.com and none of them list "regime" as pejorative, so unless this can be documented it is original research and not appropriate for wikipedia. --Silverback 19:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- American Heritage lists many words ("stupid", "crazy", etc.) which are clearly pejorative but which are not marked as such. Moreover, there are plenty of prior claims that the word is pejorative (to take three completely random examples, a paper given at a political studies convention, an article in the Zimbabwe Independent, and something at a site called "Word Detective"), so it certainly isn't "original research". Would you find it more acceptable if it was rephrased as "some people see it as pejorative", or something along those lines? -- Vardion 20:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- These are equivocal, claiming that some media or common usage is pejorative, but acknowledging the other uses, the word detective link even calls "regime change" a euphemism, something unlikely for an inherently pejorative term. Just about any term can be used pejoratively, especially in an auditory forum where inflection can do its expressive work. I have found no authoritative reference that lists it as pejorative. The closest is the Encarta dictionary, which lists the second definition as usually being applied to "oppressive" governments. Since oppressive has a negative connotation, perhaps, it regime could be considered pejorative when applied to a government you like, but applying this to the Saddam regime would be correct usage and not pejorative. Still, even here the primary definition lacked the oppressive overtone. Consider the term "undemocratic". When applied to Bush it might be pejorative, but when properly applied to Saddam, it would merely be descriptive. Wikipedia should not be leading the way to make regime pejorative, either as a primary or secondary definition. If you want to capture the secondary "oppressive" element that might be a good compromise.--Silverback 22:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think, perhaps, we are using slightly different definitions of the word "pejorative", and so I've removed that particular term. I've reworked the article a bit to mention both the neutral and the negative usages of the word — please take a look and see whether you find it satisfactory. -- Vardion 22:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That is satisfactory. Good effort, thanx.--Silverback 00:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I inserted the view that the term can be pejorative, and added support to Oxford's compact dictionary that it is especially a reference to an authoritarian government. Thus using "regime" to refer to any government with three independent branches is a claim that there is only one branch, and certainly pejorative. It's an underhanded statement that the one branch considers itself the only true government, at the expense of the other two branches. It would be like talking about the Rehnquist regime, as though he were the ruler of all. Pejorative...whether Rehnquist, Bush or Clinton. --tortdog 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What authority exists for this view: "most political scientists use it as a neutral term." I do not see that to be the case at all. In fact, I can point to a few online essays by political scientists that say the opposite. --tortdog 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have not seen it in neutral terms. When a country displeases, it will be described as a regime. E.g. Syria would only be described as 'Assad Regime" since the removal of Assad was decided. And then there is also the issue that some think you cannot use the word regime when power has been aquired in legitimate elections, even though bad things are done. I often refer to the German Kohl-Regime because of the bad things that have happened to us through his regime, even though he was duly elected. That's another debate - is a country a regime for what they do or how they came in? It is perfectly possible that someone is legitimately elected but then does bad things and one speaks of soando's regime. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The above information is a very accurate description of the current use, and can be verified just by looking at almost any article here or elsewhere (especially on the media) about e.g. communist or Nazi governments, and comparing it to articles about "democratic" governments, which are almost always called governments. How many times have you heard of the U.S. regime, or the phrase "the democratic regime", for example? I believe this is an effort to make it seem like a government is a naturally good thing, and cannot be very bad, or else it has to be called something else to make it seem illegitimate, even if it's a real official government as much as any other. The words literally mean almost exactly the same thing. There really should be references to the scholars and articles that have emphasized and studied this, and even Wiktionary mentions this in the usage notes, although this is not supposed to be a valid source for here. EDIT: I see now that someone below has already done a study like this, with results exactly like I predicted. Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I addede this, and it was reverted. He is a link to show that there are over 5.5million google hits for the phrase. Saddam gets only 3million, with Salazar a megre 85 thousand. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bush+regime&btnG=Search Guttlekraw 19:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please learn how to do a google test. With quotes, the results are quite different. --Viriditas | Talk 10:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, and your point is? The new rankings are:
First and second place are switched, but both still outrank third place massively. I still advocate keeping all three, rather than removing Salazar. Guttlekraw 21:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A "regime" refers to a system of government, not necessarily to a person heading that government. When the entire Legislative, Judicial & Executive powers are wrapped up into the body of one person, without a clearly defined system of succession upon that persons demise, than that persons name can applied to the regime (Kim Il Jung regime, Castro regime, Saddam regime, Hitler regime etc). In the United States, the system of government is the Constitution of the United States, which prescibes the manner & method of lawmaking, judicial selection, executive powers etc.; the Bush Administration is empowered under that regime, hence the Constitution of the United States is the governing regime. To advocate a "change of regime" in the United States, in the language of diplomacy as prescribed by the 1815 Congress of Vienna, is to speak openly of the overthrow of the United States Constitution, not the transition of the Bush administration to another administration. Sorry to confuse Bush haters with facts, but the wealth of bullshit written about this since 2003 aint worth the 8 gallons of water necessary to flush it. Nobs01 15:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Negative connotation in Wikipedia articlesEdit
There seems to be just one issue yet on this talk page, so let me start yet another thread on the subject :) . Whether or not 'pejorative' is the right word, 'regime' is obviously used in a negative way. Now it may be true that it's not for Wikipedia to change the official neutral use of the word in this article, but how it is used in other articles is a different matter. As far as I've seen it's mostly used for certain subjects, giving them a negative connotation and that isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be neutral. So it should either always be used or never (or random, but then who will check on that?). Let me give some examples with the scores for several articles for the terms 'government' versus 'regime':
- Communist state - 30 : 9
- Cuba - 22 : 1
- USSR - 31 : 4
- Cambodia - 20 : 6
- Nazi Germany - 13 : 4
- Saddam Hussein - 38 : 10
Well, that doesn't look too bad. But then look at these:
Catch my drift? These were the only ones I checked. Try some yourself if you like. Actually, I thought I had removed all the 'regimes' in Cuba, but one got sneaked in later it seems.
So it would make sense to change all the occurrences of 'regime' in all articles to 'government'. But that isn't quite the right word in, say, 'the Stalin regime'. That could be changed to 'the Stalin rule' (my dictionary gives a 'pejorative-warning' here too, but that seems exaggerated). But then there's no plural for 'rule' in this sense, is there? So 'the Stalin and Lenin rules' wouldn't work, would it? Is there an alternative term? And, let's not forget, is there a way to automate all these changes (for all Wikipedia articles)? I'm afraid there isn't, not fully automated anyway; one will always have to check how the word is used (it has various meanings)
Now that I'm at it, let me show some improved Googling I've done with some of the issues above and then some.
- "George W Bush" : "Bush regime" = 18,800,000 : 193,000 = 97
- "Oliveira Salazar" : "Salazar regime = 27,200 : 4,440 = 6
- "John F Kennedy" : "Kennedy regime" = 4,700,000 : 184 = 25
- Hitler : "Hitler regime" = 12,100,000 : 43,700 = 277
- "Winston Churchill" : "Churchill regime" = 1,770,000 : 42 = 42,000
- Communism : "communist regime" = 5,060,000 : 400,000 = 13
- Fascism : "fascist regime" = 3,310,000 : 75,700 = 44
- Democracy : "democratic regime" = 47,000,000 : 88,200 = 532
The higher the last figure, the less it's used in conjunction with 'regime'. Of course these figures are rounded, but it's only a very vague indication. You also have to be very careful what to Google. A problem is that Bush can mean other people or even things in this case, so it's better to use "George Bush". But "George W Bush" got more results. The same applies to Kennedy. And with 'Kennedy regime' there's the possible problem of the various Kennedies. And Hitler scored much higher without his first name. I suppose not many of these hits will be about other people. Apparently he's usually referred to without his first name. Anyway. The ones that really stand out are Salazar and Churchill (a problem with Salazar is that there are eight of them listed in the Wikipedia disambiguation page, so the first name has to be used). The others are mostly 'in the dozens' (don't forget the method is very crude). One obvious failure of the method is shown by the unexpectedly high scores for fascism and especially Hitler. Maybe that's because they are so obviously negative that that doesn't need to be stated. But for Communism that is less so, so people will feel a stronger need to condemn it by adding 'regime' (if you'll excuse my pop psychology). But a 'democratic regime' hardly seems to exist. And maybe that's a better indication. Now check out these figures:
- "successful democracy" : 18,000
- "benevolent democracy" : 603
- "successful government" : 34,500
- "benevolent government" : 13,400
- "successful regime" : 925
- "benevolent regime" : 907
No calculations needed here. The conclusion is obvious. 'Benevolent democracy' is simply a strange wording, but for the rest it's obvious how people use the word 'regime'. What's more, many occurrences of 'benevolent regime' are meant in an ironic manner, such as the 'benevolent regime' of Saddam Hussein - actually, it's striking how many of these hits are about Iraq! And even more striking is that "successful regime change" scores higher than "successful regime" with 942 hits! (May be because of double hits.) So if you leave out the 'change' bit then there are apparently no occurrences of a "successful regime" mentioned on the entire Internet!
So 'regime' definitely has a negative connotation (on the Internet anyway). So the word (in this sense) should be banned from Wikipedia (outside this article). Right? DirkvdM 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Is the Palestinian Authority a government or regime?
- Was the Iraqi Provisional Authority a government or regime?
- Is the government of Taiwan a government or regime?
- Is a de facto regime (German Wikipedia) a government? nobs 19:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean that something can be a regime without being a government? In other words that here, it can't be taken to be meant in a negative way because it's the only word for it? Well in that case there does indeed seem to be a problem. But all the other occurrences could still be changed (they form a vast majority). However, you've really just turned it around. You basically suggest that 'regime' is a broader term than government, encompasses it. So to avoid selective use of terms all occurrences of 'government' should be changed to 'regime', as was my other initial suggestion. If I read your point correctly you shouldn't mind that (but let's see if others do ....). But then you didn't quite state a point. Please do. Your poppsy trick worked, I'm hanging on your lips, now satisfy me 8-b . DirkvdM 07:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I hope you can withstand criticicism, my friend, but I question the approach or method being used. In the context this is being discussed, the meaning of both terms appears to be based not upon the historical language of diplomacy that dates back at least to the Congress of Vienna, that is used to negotiate understandings across linguistic and cultural barriers by high contracting powers, its use and meaning in Treaty Law, and the Law of Nations for the past few centuries, etc.; in its place, the approach to this question appears to be coming from partisan journalists, and thier readers, who have been critical of American foreign policy over the past three years. A regime is not what a partisan news orgainzation, or a State Department spokesman under a Democratic or Republican administration claims to be a regime; these things can be specifically defined by International experience, cooperation, understandings, and precedent. nobs 17:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
If I couldn't take criticism I wouldn't be here :) (I love an intellectual head-to-head). And taking criticism is especially easy when one doesn't understand it. In other words, I haven't a clue what you're on about. You seem to imply that my reasoning is inspired by some 'partisan journalists' (whatever that means), but I assure you I am totally autonomous in my reasoning; it's all in my head, I don't follow any leaders or doctrines. Except for Logic, Reason and Science, the things I love most, because they're not rusty doctrines but aimed at questioning everything including themselves. Maybe my inclusion of Bush gave you a wrong idea about my intentions, but I only put him (and Salazar) in the list because of a previous thread hereabove.
You say you question my approach or method. How is that? (Please give an answer I can understand this time....) DirkvdM 12:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing the air (I always try to direct my comments to the Chair, kinda like speaking on the floor of the Congress, you're not supposed to speak directly to another member in debate). My point is, the use of the term "regime" has a long history, with a specific meaning, in the language of diplomacy between nations. Only since 2003, has it's use been "popularized" by so-called "mainstream media", and entered the general public discourse. In so doing, administration critics have politicized it, with terms like "Bush regime" etc., which only displays the fact that they have no idea what the proper use of the term is. To understand it's proper use, I would suggest beginning with an understanding of three other terms, recognized government, legitimate government, and legitimate recognized government, all controversial terms in themselves, open to wide interpretation. But I would suggest sticking with an understanding of what a legitimate recognized government is within the commmunity of nations, not what some individual ideologue who challenges recognized definitions and understandings of terminology within the community of nations. We all have or prejudices, but efforts to rebuild Babylon or the Tower of Babel by confusing accepted terminology, by insisting on some private definition or personal disputation, runs counter to the very idea of building cooperation between peoples of different cultures. nobs 17:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Dictionary definition: 
- A form of government: A government in power; administration:
- A prevailing social system or pattern.
- The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
A "regime" is simply whatever government, good or bad, is in power. Let's not worry too much. -Willmcw 19:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- True, not a huge dispute; point is, under International Law, the regime, or system of government in the United States is not the Bush administration; it is the Constitution of the United States. So to openly call for regime change in the United States, is not to advocate a new Administration, it is to advocate the overthrow of the Constitution. Sorry for being a stickler on minute technical details. thx. nobs 19:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I've already acknowledged that regime is officially a neutral term. But that's not my point. There are two bases for my argumentation: 1) above Googling shows that in practise the term is used in a negative way, so when used in Wikipedia it will be understood as such and 2) in Wikipedia articles it is used only for certain types of government, thus following and reinforcing the common usage which is both wrong and negative. And like I said, the possible solutions are to always use it, never use it or use it at random (but then how do you check on that). To that I'd now like to add the option to use them in different ways in stead of seeing them as equivalent, as you implicitly suggest. So a regime is non-specific, used for the rule of a type of government, in a certain period in time, and a government is specific for one administration (as it is called in the USA). Let's take Cuba. The 50's revolution changed both the regime and the government. Before that there was a change of regime with the independence from Spain, after which the governments changed but the regime stayed the same (until the 50's)? I would have thought this was the other way around, but you give the impression of being the expert :), so I'll follow your lead. But notice that this is at the core of the problem; an encyclopedia should not just instruct by definition, but also by example, and thus consistently use words in the right way. After all, that's what people learn more from than from definitions. So it tells people what a regime is not just through this article, but much more through other articles in which the word is used.
If this solution (or something similar) is correct then that would make me very happy, because it doesn't circumvent the problem, as the other solutions do, but follows correct definitions. It's a perfect marriage between correctness and practicality, two things one often has to balance between. DirkvdM 08:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Very good discussion. I think you're gaining an understanding of (as I myself am too, really it can get somewhat complicated). The idea of negative-postitve connotations is largely a partisan invention of the last few recent years, and will in time pass, perhaps. Back to something I pointed out in another discussion, while all governments are regimes, not all regimes are governments (or recognized governments). (Palestinian Authority, for example). Let's compare the U.S to France since 1789: the U.S. has had one regime, the Constitution of the United States, in which all law-making (legislative), judicial, and executive administration is comprised. France, by contrast, since the Ancien Regime, has had six regimes, French First Republic, French Second Republic, French Third Republic, Vichy France, French Fourth Republic, and the current French Fifth Republic. While all the various French republics had successive executives, each change of executive administration does not constitute an upsetting of the established order. Now let's look at the regimes of Castro, Saddam, Kim Il Sung, and Hitler. In all these cases, the entire law making, judicial, executive power, and the rules of succession are bound up in the person of one man. There is no lawful provision to perpetuate the regime's existence beyond the limited lifespan of one person. George Bush has no law-making authority, under the established regime in the United States (Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution); it is simply juvenile partisan nonsense to compare a "Bush Regime" to the Iraqi Baathist Regime. (Pardon my display of POV). nobs 14:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Definition #3 :The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
- Where in International Law is a "regime" defined as the system of government. Are there treaties? A U.N. glossary? -Willmcw 23:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- That, is a damn good question. Best online source your probably gonna find is U.S. Dept. of State Foreign Affairs Handbook: Using Diplomatic Notes, and it's pretty lame cause it's for lower level employees. Only extensive reading would give you the direct answer, or perhaps a degree from Tufts University. nobs 23:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Until Tufts grants degrees to all Wikipedia editors, let's stick to verifiable sources, like dictionaries or other available reference works. To come up with our own definition would be original research. -Willmcw 02:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that starts with a translation. Here's an attempt, with uncertain translations "in double quotes".
- In International Law, a De-Facto-Regime is a "structure" that has all characteristics of a State (such as a State Territory, a "State People", a "State Government" (that could also mean 'monopoly of force' )), but for various, mostly political, reasons is internationally not recognised as a State. Nevertheless these states are protected by International Law. Examples of De-Facto-Regimes are Abkhazia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and Taiwan. See also: List of sovereign states, Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, Politics and Law (the German page links to the English Right, but I think 'Law' is meant). DirkvdM 11:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Quite. I'll stick to Cuba, because that's what I know most about. While it may be true that it is uncertain what will happen after Castro's death, given his importance in Cuban politics, officially the Party rules. So Cuba has a Socialist Regime and a Castro Government. Would that be a correct wording? The USA would then have a Democratic Regime and a Bush Government. Which leads to two problems. One is that in the USA the term Administration is used. Should Wikipedia follow that or be consistent and just use Bush Government? The other is that the term Democratic Regime will raise eyebrows because the term Regime is never used in that connotation. So it might be wise to always link regime when it is used in such connotation and then have an explanation of this Wikipedia policy at the start of this article.
Ultimately I don't care which set of terms is used for what. All I care about is consistency. At least, that's what my posting was meant to be about. But the key terms are really correctness, consistency and intelligibility. Correctness in the sense that terms are used in their official dictionary meanings (preferably close to their etymological meanings for inter-linguistic consistency, but that's personal). Consistency in the sense that if more than one set of terms is possible, the same set of terms is used throughout Wikipedia (always with the same meanings). And intelligibility in the sense that the use of terms corresponds with what people understand them to mean. And that last bit is the trickiest. Which is why I suggested never using the term Regime because it is (perceived as) a politically charged term. Then again, like I said, an encyclopedia should also educate by example. But that shouldn't result in a snotty ivory tower attitude. This is very tricky, and I don't see an easy solution, so that's why I emphasise consistency. As for the correctness, you guys seem to know more about this, so I'll leave that to you. So could you please make up your minds? :) DirkvdM 09:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- From Oxford Reference online:
- 1.regime A system of government or administration. The most common use of this promiscuous term in recent years has been in the phrase ‘military regime’. So while any government may be termed a regime, be it monarchical, aristocratic, republican, or tyrannical, the term unavoidably conjures up memories of tanks in the streets in Latin America and Eastern Europe. This is to be regretted, since it has two more technical senses in which it may not easily be replaced. First, when governments come and go with bewildering frequency, as in nineteenth-century Spain or post-1945 Italy, there may still be an absence of fundamental or revolutionary change. In these circumstances it is possible to speak of regime continuity. Alternatively, and more rarely, a change of regime (from constitutional monarchy to tyranny, or from dispersed to centralized government) may be achieved without a change in government, as in the move from parliamentary to personal rule by Charles I of England, or under Margaret Thatcher. Secondly, in international relations the difficulty of accommodating the rise of non-state actors within state-centric realist models of explanation has led to use of the term ‘regime’ to cover norm-bound interactions relating to issues such as the global environment or human rights, in which states, international organizations, transnational corporations, individuals, and worldwide pressure groups like Greenpeace or Amnesty International all take part.
- How to cite this entry: Charles Jones "regime" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
- 2.regime Used interchangeably with “government” to denote an organized system of rule (e.g., aristocracy, monarchy, democracy). The term is also sometimes used in place of “administration” to refer to a specific government in office. Regime can also signify a broad framework of rules and norms that govern a particular issue, such as security, intellectual property, or the environment.
- How to cite this entry: "regime" Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
- 3.régime †regimen of health; system of government. XVIII. — F. — L. regimen, f. regere rule. So regimen regulation of matters pert. to health XIV; rule, government XV; (gram.) government XVI. — L. regiment †rule, government; †control, management; †place under a certain rule XIV; †regimen of health; body of troops forming a unit XVI. — (O)F. régiment — late L. regimentum rule; see -MENT. Hence regiment vb. XVII, regimental adj. and sb. pl. ( -AL1) XVIII.
- How to cite this entry: "régime" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Ed. T. F. Hoad. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
- nobs 17:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Alright, 'system of government' (in the third one) seems like a good official definition, following what's been said so far. Although the second one almost leaves all options open. And the first one calls "from constitutional monarchy to tyranny" a change in regime, but that isn't quite necessarily so because the two can coincide (as they often have). So it's not all that clear cut. But then nothing ever is outside mathematics :) . I'm inclined to ask again which terms are to be used for what then. But of course if we come to some agreement that doesn't mean we can unilaterally start applying that. Is there a place in Wikipedia where such rules are set? Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style seem like options. All this assuming you're also in favour of standardisation of these terms in Wikipedia, but that seems obvious. Is it? DirkvdM 11:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I like the first definition because (1) the source, Dictionary of Politics, and (2) within the definition itself it sheds light on the common misuse of the term which is coming into existence ("most common use is promiscuouis", "unavoidedly conjures up", "to be regretted", "led to use of...to cover norm-bound interactions relating to issues"). Believe it or not, this is close to the simplest definition we may find. And in actuality, an understanding can best be gained from all three. But it supports the basic idea "any government may be termed a regime", as I stated earlier, "all governments are regimes", it is a " system of government or administration", hence Palestinian Authority, Free French qualify as "administrations", though not "recognized governments"; (as Cuba does not qualify as a "recognized government" to (a) the United States and (b) the OAS. Cuba does qualify, under that provision in the OAS statement, as a de facto regime). nobs 16:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi there - I added back in the Bush regime as an example because, whatever our politics, wikipedia has a long standing tradition of reflecting actual usage, and documenting, rather than prescribing, that usage. Let me know what you think, For great justice. 16:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Because the term 'regime" is nowadays never used for any form of democratic government or non-autoritarian leadership I made the modern usage of the word in the authoritaian context more explicit. Because of the long term discussion on this talk page I thought it would never be agreed upon, but because of the modern usage is very different than just "any form of government" I just made this addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This definition is completely incorrectEdit
This article is entirely inaccurate. The definition of a regime is as follows: "A set of rules that regulate the operation of government, including rules for the handover of power and limitations of government power." For instance, the use of the term "Bush Regime" is completely inappropriate: there is no Bush regime, there is a Bush government; the United States has had the same regime since the 1780s, established by the Constitution. This article should be immediately changed.
US one of the Oldest regimes? - Are you sure?Edit
This article states, "For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of the Constitution in the 1780s." Surely the regime in the UK is much older than this, being the same regime that was in effect before the US Constitution was even thought about. Is this an example of a US bias in this article? Awheewall 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, because the United States as a political entity is the same as it was when the constitution was ratified. The United Kindom is not the same entity:
- The Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1801) or the United Kingdom of Great Britain
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1927)
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1927–present)
Random comment on skewed articleEdit
Stumbling on this article, I'm amazed at its incompleteness. Regime to me is used most often in the scientific context: a set of conditions, often a synonym for a region of parameter space. While I note that the OED only vaguely acknowledges this use, I also note that of the first 50 google hits for regime, 32% are for non-governmental uses of the word. Random examples:   . When I get around to it, I'll make some additions to the article to make it more balanced. 184.108.40.206 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I got around to it. 220.127.116.11 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Usage in the sense of "regimen"Edit
I reverted the change that said this usage is incorrect. The cited Merriam Webster definition states that "regime" can mean the same as "regimen". This is in agreement with the Oxford English Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. --Weeble (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionaryEdit
This article talks about three different things, which don't really have much in common apart from taking their name from the French for "government". As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, shouldn't they be split off into separate articles? (I'd suggest the main article should be on the political concept, and create Regime (disambiguation) to point to all other meanings of "regime". Iapetus (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The many lanuage links to other wikis are inappropriate since this page is essentially a Disambiguation page with more details. The other languges wikis I could check (fr, es, zh) all are on "forms of government". I've removed them. Someone please check the other languages.Mistakefinder (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Can't see a reason for changeEdit
Why split such an article which is so short, and identifies different areas where 'regime' is used. If any of these applications of the term (medical, political etc.) begin to dominate by great text input, at that point the article could be split, but at the moment there seems to me little point in us exercising such an effort. Acabashi (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Per the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, an article in Wikipedia should be about a single topic, not multiple topics that involve a given word. For now I have simply deleted the non-political senses of the word, but if someone wants to reinstate that content then it should be as separate articles, one per distinct topic. 2601:644:0:DBD0:8877:62BF:B56D:CDD6 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)