Talk:Apostrof

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regime[edit]

What, pray tell, is controversial about the use of the word here, or for that matter anywhere else? The word is amply used by sources, it was even used by the communist regime itself, and of course it doesn't refer just to the government. Dahn (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed regime per primary meaning does not mean "government" but system of governance, however, where used in such contexts as in this article, it is taken specifically in its secondary and more controversial context whereby the authors of the sources have used it in place of "government". Given we already say "Communist Romania", it cannot imply any other system of governance and therefore the addition of "communist regime" stands between verbiage at best, and politically fuelled editorialising. It is not as if reliable sources to not use other synonyms such as rule, policy, system, administration, government or other words that fit the description. As for the first part of your quesion, "what is controversial about the use of the word here?", well perhaps if you can find the word used by any government in self-reference, or CNBC using the word in reference to the "US regime", a BBC reference to the "Cameron or Blair regime", or a CCTV reference to the "Beijing regime" then I am sure if editors agree to start using those terms on US/UK government articles that I will accept there is nothing controversial here. --OJ (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, "regime" is quasi-synonymous with "rule", which you insist on spreading everywhere where it comes to Romanian communism. The claim that it is "politically fueled verbiage" is from your imagination, and reflects you personal priorities -- which are also apparent from the fact that you insist we should necessarily discuss the communist regime as something resembling temporary government in British parliamentarism, for fear of seeming POV (that is a POV position, trying to whitewash a dictatorship). In short: adding "communist regime" is in no significant way different from saying "communist rule" (regardless of your claims, they would both apply to democracies, as well as to dictatorships), but your qualms and your lawyering above point out that you feel we should discuss ideological system the same as liberal democracies. Dahn (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per our own article: "In politics, a régime is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society." That quite clearly fits communism, which was both a specific form of government and a set of social norms (both of which were specified in its constitutions, none of which survived communism). A "communist government" is simply a communist party in power, even in a liberal democracy, or a specific communist government in a succession of governments (say, the Rykov government). So there: the POV is suggesting that a regime was merely a government. Dahn (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, educing the number of characters is no valid concern in what is basically a stub. Enough of these charades. Dahn (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a number of points so I shall address these one by one:

  • First of all, "regime" is quasi-synonymous with "rule"
'Regime' as we know means a lot of things, and in this case, it was being used synonymously with "rule". By changing "rule" to "the regime", the passage is extended and no information is given to a reader that had been absent in the previous.
  • The claim that it is "politically fueled verbiage" is from your imagination, and reflects you personal priorities
Nobody has found a source whereby the word is used in place of rule or government in self-reference, or in reference to a western regime when reported by a mainstream source. In fact there are sources which explore the usage of this term and it is widely accepted as a biased term. I can link these to you any time you wish.
  • which are also apparent from the fact that you insist we should necessarily discuss the communist regime as something resembling temporary government in British parliamentarism
  • your qualms and your lawyering above point out that you feel we should discuss ideological system the same as liberal democracies
If an editor feels the need to express that Romanian Communism was authoritarian, he is free to write this. If an editor wishes to use specific terms in passing whereby it is his avowed intention to distinguish between Romania's pre-1989 system and the contemporary British system, then this too can be seen as lawyering. This is an encyclopaedia and we as editors relate the events, as such, the argument above implies it is called a regime when it is "authoritarian", but it is not called a regime when it is a "liberal democracy". That is clearly WP:SYNTH.
  • "In politics, a régime is the form of government..." That quite clearly fits communism, which was both a specific form of government and a set of social norms (both of which were specified in its constitutions, none of which survived communism).
By that definition, every devised system ever known is a regime, but we do not use terms such as capitalist regime, market-economy regime or even pro-democracy regime when editing an encyclopaedia.
  • A "communist government" is simply a communist party in power / even in a liberal democracy, or a specific communist government in a succession of governments (say, the Rykov government). So there: the POV is suggesting that a regime was merely a government.
Obviously in cases where a Communist party is elected in one election and then voted out in another, here communist regime doesn't fit the bill because it isn't a communist state, but it is a state of some sort and is therefore a regime of one kind or another per your definition. As such, if there is no communist regime then it cannot be said a to a country living in communist rule either, because no democratically elected communist party will be able to amend the constitution and make radical changes to the apparatus that is supporting their continued existence. So this proves unequivocally that a term such as "communist rule in Romania" is not lacking in anything imparted in the more verbose "the communist regime in Romania".

--OJ (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Regime. --OJ (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider this conversation legitimate when you would at least back any of your claims as to the derogatory meaning of "regime". I will not even bother with the inane argument that "rule" is better than "regime", and that we "need" to keep articles short. The related conversation is just you and some other account playing at consensus. Dahn (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may start by correcting your conduct, I'll move on to the dynamics after I have cleared this up.

  • I never stated we need to keep articles short, I merely referred to your addition as verbiage for the precise reason that (if taken in good faith and not assuming political reasoning) it said nothing whatsoever that the previous version failed to inform the reader; this is not the same as claiming articles need to be short.
  • My link to the conversation at WP:WTW was issued out of courtesy for anyone reading so that it is known I have launched a conversation elsewhere, having provided the counter link to this discussion at that talk. Nowhere did I claim that I had achieved a "consensus" simply because another editor agreed with my assertion. Had you bothered to read my opening post you'll have noticed that I warmly invited people who disagreed with my position to cite their views, that means the likes of you. That thread was launched on a more comprehensive platform, not just for one passage in one article; it remains open, I hope for more replies and I am keeping watch. So I kindly ask you to stop putting words in my mouth.

With regards the debate, I am unsure as to whether you are being disingenuous or whether you really do not know that "regime" is a politically fuelled label. Per WP:AGF I will assume the latter with this response. There is one listed example of "regime vs government" on the site as it stands, it is on Loaded language and is sourced (see 11 on current layout). Outside of WP you can find various sources, [1], [2]. It is explored briefly here[3], and very in depth by Jón Kalman Stefánsson in this source[4]. Away from these citations, it has been seen to be loaded by Steven Poole in his 2006 book Unspeak, and earlier in Don Watson's Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language. How much more do you want?

As for the assertion that "rule" being better than "regime" is inane, if you believe this is so then I welcome your thoughts, but I think you wrapped that one up rather well in your remark prior to your essay to which I replied when you said, "adding communist regime is in no significant way different from saying communist rule". Even so, it is just one alternative among numerous whereby the point can be presented in neutral language, and I am more than happy to consider those options. Obviously if you are that hell bent on 'regime' because the alternatives are not "brutal sounding enough", then simply provide me with your own back-up that "communist rule" is in some way loaded and I will gladly look into it. --OJ (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will simply note that all those instances (all those I could verify, at least) explicitly refer to using "regime" for liberal democratic governments in liberal democratic states, which the communist government of Romania was not, and did not claim to be. Dahn (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this increasingly sterile debate, let me just point out one obvious aspect, which is that "regime" is used unsparingly by academics to refer to, well, regimes outside as well as inside the communist bloc. Example: the anti-communist Somoza regime (there's that word again!) has two books on it published by American university presses that use the term in their titles. Over 20,000 books refer to the Somoza regime, as do over a hundred articles on Wikipedia. You're fighting a pretty uphill battle, in other words.
  • I know you're not here to write articles (one stub excepted), but it would be great if you could drop this already and, as I suggested previously, find a less bothersome hobby. - Biruitorul Talk 22:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh finally you have chosen to communicate? First of all, I resent the personal comments from your last statement and your implication of "hobby". Editors who focus on NPOV and other existing elements of the project are just as valuable as those who start five articles a day. With regards the rest of your post, I know well that the term 'regime' is used routinely by "academics", but each reference needs to be looked into on its own merit. In a typical passage one may use the word for its actual meaning whilst on the same article it may be used in place of government in which case it is simply a label. The examples I provided demonstrated that the term is loaded when used in that second instance. I never stated it was exclusive to communists but there does seem to be an absence of its usage within the sources to cry out "Assad regime" where ostensibly "democratic" governments in the west are concerned. Looking deeper into your observation, many so-called "academics" also unsparingly replace president with tyrant, that doesn't make it acceptable here. --OJ (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Wikipedia has probably millions if not hundreds of thousands of references to the word in question as well as many blatant NPOV-breaching buzzwords. With regards Somoza I will happily get onto it when I find time; that is not to say a drive to have the term removed but to look at whether the same message can be delivered without its usage. If it is 100% necessary then naturally I will not object to it. --OJ (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apostrof. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apostrof&oldid=1204911422"