Talk:Regime

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That is satisfactory.  Good effort, thanx.--Silverback 00:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  regime as "pejorative" is original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please learn how to do a google test.  With quotes, the results are quite different. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush regime 

message: 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)
replies: text: And we also don't have a constitution to define it. SGGH ping! 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those changes are comparable (if anything smaller changes) to the addition of more than the original US states. I'mma remove that sentence as it's unsourced anyways 92.15.53.148 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  US one of the Oldest regimes? - Are you sure? 

message: 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.
129.16.97.227 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I got around to it.  129.16.97.227 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random comment on skewed article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usage in the sense of "regimen" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed.  It looks like the other senses didn't really have any content beyond the dictionary meaning, so I went ahead and removed the non-political usages of the word. 2601:644:0:DBD0:8877:62BF:B56D:CDD6 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a dictionary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page and Language links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can't see a reason for change 

message: over 70.56.193.109 (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki dumb & crossed way over the line. I'm boycotring & bringing others back to truth. Let there be light!r