text:
Talk:Regime

Acute é
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 research
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. 58.174.193.2 (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)

Bush regime
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)
 * 287,000 Saddam -
 * 173,000 Bush -
 * 779 Salazar -

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 articles
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': 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.
 * Communist state - 30 : 9
 * Cuba - 22 : 1
 * USSR - 31 : 4
 * Cambodia - 20 : 6
 * Nazi Germany - 13 : 4
 * Saddam Hussein - 38 : 10
 * United States - 40 : 0
 * UK - 19 : 0
 * Netherlands - 21 : 0
 * Australia - 23 : 0

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. 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: 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!
 * "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
 * "successful democracy" : 18,000
 * "benevolent democracy" : 603
 * "successful government" : 34,500
 * "benevolent government" : 13,400
 * "successful regime" : 925
 * "benevolent regime" : 907

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)

 * Question:

 * 1) Is the Palestinian Authority a government or regime?
 * 2) Was the Iraqi Provisional Authority a government or regime?
 * 3) Is the government of Taiwan a government or regime?
 * 4) 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 "regime" is simply whatever government, good or bad, is in power. Let's not worry too much. -Willmcw 19:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A form of government: A government in power; administration:
 * 2) A prevailing social system or pattern.
 * 3) The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.

 * 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)

 * Willmcw: Is there a way to bring over from German Wikipedia an English version of this article: de facto regime ? nobs 17:23, 28 July 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) 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.

 * 1) 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.

 * 1) 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? Naming conventions and 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 82.176.212.64 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This definition is completely incorrect
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?
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)

Hope that clears it up. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And we also don't have a constitution to define it. SGGH ping! 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * 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)

Random comment on skewed article
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)
 * OK, I got around to it. 129.16.97.227 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Usage in the sense of "regimen"
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 dictionary
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_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)

 * 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)

Disambiguation page and Language links
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 change
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)

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

title: Talk:Regime


text:
Talk:Copland (operating system)

Title? and rewrite
I'm not sure that this article shouldn't be under the page Copland_Project. There are many more internal links to Copland the composer, all the ones I have checked link to Aaron_Copland and avoid confusion, but it is common to refer to a composer by just their surname.

The Copland project is also discussed on the Mac_OS_X page, so there might be scope for a merger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solipsist (talk • contribs) 11:22, 17 March 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you're right that the page should be renamed, but perhaps Copland_OS would be more suitable than Copland_Project. I reviewed this page a number of times while researching the topic, and I think the page could use a major re-write to make it more focused, concise, and a bit more objective. --MFNickster 06:30, 21 April 2004

Why not use Mac OS 8 (Copland) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.90.122 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 April 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree this page needs a rewrite; the phrase "provided an opportunity for Apple's soul - Steve Jobs - to return" especially wrankles. I doubt handing Apple over to Jobs was one of Amelio's objectives... Corvus 02:23, 13 September 2004

 * Major rewrite. New section headers.  Some objectivity fixes.  Reference to "soul" deleted.  New to Wikipedia, would appreciate some feedback. --Hadley 04:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Great rewrite, Hadley! You've turned it into a much more substantial article. Some of it comes across as being commentary rather than informational, though. I would like to try ironing it out a little, if it's okay with you. --MFNickster 06:18, 2 November 2004

Kudos to Maury Markowitz, for adding a ton of information I didn't know. This article is looking much better. Thank you, MFNickster.--hadley 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Code Names
These code names are incorrect. Apple had both external and internal code names. In part, the ideas was that an overheard conversation would be harder to connect to the actual project if people inside the company used an entirely name. For example, Copland was known as "Maxwell," Gershwin was known as "Edison," and System 7.5 was "Capone," because "Capone shot up Chicago." "Mozart" was a code name quickly pulled from a list in Developer Support shortly prior to the first seed release of System 7.5. "Mozart" had been used for dozens of projects over the years and the lack of a specifically planned external code name was indicative of how little attention the Capone project received internally because of the immense focus on Maxwell. Clearly code names are interesting to readers or the mention of Mozart wouldn't be relevant, but is this level of detail really interesting? Alexr wiki 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots to be available soon.
I have a computer that I am installing the DR0 and DR1 releases of Copland on, so I will have some screenshots of this not-terribly-impressive OS in action :) Goat-see 28 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

 * Looking forward to seeing them --John Kenneth Fisher 23:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The released Mac OS 8
Eventually they released a number of such upgrades as Mac OS 8, in order to deliver on their promise of having something called Mac OS 8 running on all existing machines and thereby avoiding a lawsuit.

This says that Tempo was only called version 8 for legal reasons, which seems rather odd; is it suggesting that they should have frozen the version number at 7.x forever just because they couldn't deliver the 8.0 they had planned? David Arthur 22:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Both really. At some point during this period of time, perhaps as early as 94 and certainly as late as 96, Apple put stickers on all their machines that said "ready for OS 8" or something like that. The basic gist was "don't worry, buying this machine is fine". When Apple cancelled the project there was an abortive class action lawsuit saying that Apple had been involved in false advertizing, because the next major OS (Rhapsody) would NOT run on (m)any(?) of these machines. They "solved" this neatly by calling the next version of 7.x "8.0", and I suppose the lawyers were realistic enough to know that since Apple's stickers never said what OS 8 actually meant, there was no longer a lawsuit to be had. Maury 12:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware that they avoided certain legal troubles with the designation; I just don't think it's fair to suggest that Tempo's release name was unjustified or motivated solely by such issues. David Arthur 15:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I'm not the author of the original quote, but I'm pretty sure it is the case -- I seem to remember many comments about this at the time. Well I think it's safe to say it's more true than not, at least. Maury 03:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Wasn't there some "clone wars" going on at the time?  I think the clones had licenses to make System 7 machines but maybe not System 8? Copland's Robbas 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

System 8 vs. Mac OS 8
Well, I made a mistake in my edit - Mac OS 7.6 had not been released when Copland was canceled. Nevertheless, the publication of this book in late 1996, just as Copland was being canceled, clearly shows that Apple intended to release Copland as "Mac OS 8" and not "System 8," I hope this can be considered a definitive source. MFNickster 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * There was an unreleased "System 7.7" which became Mac OS 8, and included the Copland Appearance extension. Copland was to be System 8. The story is they changed it from "system" to "OS" for legal reasons. I know this is true because I had a pre-release (and unfinished) copy of System 7.7. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, I know they released a System 7-based OS as "Mac OS 8." The point is that Copland was going to be called "Mac OS 8" on release. The Tony Francis book testifies to that. MFNickster (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Amelio wasn't there for WWDC 1995
Spindler was still in charge at that point. I was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.101.133.172 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Absolutely correct, I had "back-dated" the WWDC's by a year. Fixed. Maury 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

PPC Nativeness
''System 7 had been recompiled on the PowerPC with great success, but the system still relied on the processor looking like a member of the Motorola 68000 family. In particular the sixteen-level interrupt handlers used in the Mac OS had to be emulated, requiring an expensive call into the OS to translate these to the PowerPC's much simpler two-level system. Removing this limitation would allow Copland-native applications to run much faster, as much as 50% in many cases, with no special effort on the part of the developers.''

This rather glibly ignores the fact that bits of the system were still emulated, and the wonderful fun of the Mixed Mode Manager. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahruman (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If anything it simply doesn't provide as much detail as it needs to. Apple had repeatedly commented that Copland would have no emulated code in the OS. It doesn't "glibly ignore" any such fact, because that "fact" is not true in this case. Maury 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No, the complaint here is the "System 7 had been recompiled on the PowerPC with great success" part, not the Copland-native issue. I clarified this in the text.

Howzabout a mention of compound documents?
As i recall, one of the highly touted and most axiously awaited features of Copland was it's support for the opendoc compound document architecture. Shouldn't there a be a word or two about this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericfluger (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 March 2006

 * Maybe, but OpenDoc wasn't going to be integrated into the OS in any way. It was going to be included in Copland in exactly the same way as in System 7.5, as a set of shared libraries - even SOM was going to be a shared library rather than an OS-level service. Still, it might be worth including a wikilink to OpenDoc. MFNickster 19:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I was under the impression that SOM was going to be included in the OS itself. I do remember them talking a whole lot about it at WWDC'96 anyway. Maury 20:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Could be... I've never been to a WWDC, so I am relying on Tony Francis's book Mac OS 8 Revealed for my information. It says that "SOMobjects for Mac OS is based on the Code Fragment Manager so that SOM classes are implemented as shared libraries." MFNickster 05:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * SOMObjects was indeed provided; It had shipped prior to Copland as well. Alexr wiki 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not Aaron Copland
I bet that 95% of the people searching for "Copland" are looking for the composer - is it possible to keep track of which disambiguation links are most followed most frequently to determine which page should have priority? Tiki2099 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd think it more likely that people looking for the composer would be trying Aaron Copland. Anyway I'm not aware of a way to track disambig link clicks.  But you can see which articles link to this page.  And out of the fortyish links, only one was anything to do with Aaron, which I fixed with this edit. AlistairMcMillan 19:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, thanks for reverting my move without discussing it. I didn't do it out of boredom or randomness, AM, I put quite some thought into it.  Weeks, really.  First thing: Read the talk page. this has been mentioned a few times, including this offensive comment that I removed.  The fact that it's a recurring issue suggests there's room for improvement.  Second thing: people will come to Wikipedia looking for information on the composer (who is far more popular than a cancelled OS project, which was named after the composer), and they'll type "Copland" into a search box.  Or maybe "Copeland", because that's how some pronounced it.  Copeland drops you off at a disambiguation page, which lists all the different things with a last name of Copeland, oh, and there's a band named Copeland (who, like Apple's Copland project, have the distinction of being the only thing on Wikipedia with that exact name -- but are nonetheless located at Copeland (band)).  Disambiguation encourages us to use disambiguation pages where there is a risk of confusion.  Third thing: Try doing a Google search on Copland.  Not "Aaron Copland", just Copland.  The large majority of the search results are about the composer, not the operating system, and Wikipedia should behave accordingly.

 * This is why I feel Copland ought to be a disambiguation page. -/- Warren 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Copeland is a totally different issue. There are other things called simply "Copeland". Although we have them with other things added to their article title to disambiguate them (like band or Kansas), their name is simply Copeland. There is nothing else called simply "Copland". Everything is either X Copland or Copland X.

The search thing I don't get either. If people are looking for Aaron Copland, they are probably going to search for "Aaron Copland" or some misspelling of his name, rather than just "Copland". And even if they do, we have a disambig link at the very top of the article.

If you really think this a serious problem, then change the disambig notice to something like "For the composer, see "Aaron Copland", for other meanings see "Copland (disambig)". AlistairMcMillan 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * With regard to searching, it is very, very common to refer to a classical composer by their last name. Would people search for "Ludwig von Beethoven" or "Beethoven"?  "Wolfgang Mozart" or simply "Mozart"?  How about Mussorgsky or Chopin, most people don't even know their first names.

 * Next, look at the number of links to the composer page versus the os page - that should give some indication of the relative popularity of the two subjects

 * Finally, let us not forget that the OS was named after the composer! Should Gershwin point here?  If not, how many screen shots does it take for a failed OS to claim the page of its namesake? Tiki2099 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"...claim the page of its namesake?" If the OS had been called "Aaron Copland" I would support your point 100%. However it is not.

Does this help at all? Or do still think there is a chance people are going to be confused? AlistairMcMillan 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If there were no OS called "Copland", the page would surely point to the composer, and the OS was clearly named after the composer, as mentioned in the article itself. It's not about confusion, people can figure out that a page about an OS is not a page about a composer.  However, on general principle, searching for a particular term should go directly to what the most people are likely to be expecting when they search for that term.  The goal is to minimize the time people spend looking for information.  Like Gershwin, the most appropriate page should be to the composer.  Tiki2099 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So you think we should re-arrange pages based on two assumptions? (1) More people want to read about the composer than the OS project. (2) A significant portion of the people who are wanting to read about the composer will search for "Copland" instead of "Aaron Copland". The first I think you are probably correct about, although I could be wrong. The second I don't think likely.

And please, stop comparing with Gershwin. That is totally different. As far as we know Gershwin, was never more than a footnote in a press release, whereas parts of Copland actually shipped (HFS Plus, etc). AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I am fine with Copland going straight to the current article on the OS. I don't think it should redirect to Aaron Copland, at most it should redirect to the dab page. MFNickster 00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gershwin analogy is very appropriate - both composers, both code names for OS projects that never were released. However, perhaps a better analogy is Darwin, a real OS project and a real person, where the Darwin page is at Darwin (operating system). Also, note that there have been several (5+ now) comments on this very page from people who have made the same observation regarding seaching for the term "Copland". At the very least it should point to the disambuigation page Tiki2099 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Where do you get 5+ from? I see 1 anon comment, 1 vandal comment and yourself.

 * How can you compare Gershwin and Copland? No-one even started work on Gershwin.  Not only did people work on Copland, but people outside Apple actually used Copland and every single Mac sold in the last seven/eight years uses technology that was developed for Copland.

 * And Darwin is different. There are other things called simply "Darwin", towns, comic book characters, etc.  There is nothing else called "Copland".  Everything else is something that has "Copland" in its name. AlistairMcMillan 11:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I can compare Gershiwn and Darwin is because it shows how Apple uses code names to describe projects, and how the main page for those projects incorporates the fact that it is a project into the page name. This OS project is just another thing with "Copland" in its name. There are comments like this from Solipsist, MFNickster, and 69.205.90.122 in the section "Title? and rewrite", then in this sections there are comments from me, Warren, and MFNickster (again). Look man, do what you want, but you're not convincing anyone that the most appropriate content for a page called "Copland" is a page about historical OS project Tiki2099 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You said "This OS project is just another thing with "Copland" in its name." Sorry but that is wrong.  It doesn't have Copland IN its name, its name is Copland.  That is it, those seven letters and nothing else.  It isn't called Copland Bob or Copland OS X.  It was simply called "Copland".  If there was ANYTHING else called simply "Copland" I wouldn't dispute this, but EVERYTHING else is either "Copland Something" or "Something Copland".  AlistairMcMillan 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

research help
this article is very nice. i am doing research on apple computer and this is precisely the sort of information i am looking for -- insider details on what happened in the mid 90s at apple (why did the company do so poorly from 93-97?). at least, i am guessing these are insider details because they don't seem to be cited.

if you are interested in sharing whatever you know drop me a line at my talk page, or send me an email. thanks.

Copland's Robbas 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Article name
As a fan both of classical music and of Apple computers, I have to say it is quite farcical that an abandoned operating system project apparently takes precedence over the most significant composer in America's history. AlistairMcMillan's argument that the OS is the only thing which is called "Copland" tout court cuts no ice at all: the only thing called "Beethoven", rather than "x Beethoven" or "Beethoven x", is a 1992 film about a dog, but guess where Beethoven redirects to? The only thing just called "Thatcher" is the profession, but where does Thatcher redirect to? The only thing just called "Bach" appears to be a New Zealand beach house. Etc, etc. If this article is to remain under its present name, I'd be fascinated to see some evidence that the failed OS is of more significance than the internationally-famous composer. (This anonymous comment may be expressed in unnecessarily offensive terms, but the general gist seems to be spot on.) Vilĉjo 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * All fair comments, but is it really to much to direct the user to the "correct" article by clicking on a link in the very first line? Maury 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I've renamed the article (again). Disambiguation says:

 * When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

 * A failed operating system project at a computer company with a 2.5% computing marketshare is not a more important subject than the other things known by "Copland". Disambiguation pages are fair, and give due prominence to all subjects, and, like you've pointed out, there's a lot of precedent for doing it this way. -/- Warren 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Uhhh, do we really need the parens? If so, move Gershwin. Maury 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Score one for common sense! Tiki2099 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article moved
As I said on Talk:Apple Rhapsody (operating system), I'm not crazy about this renaming scheme, but can we at least get rid of "(operating system)" now? MFNickster 22:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

System 7 and GB hard drives
I reverted the recent change which was justified with the claim that there weren't any 1GB+ hard drives when System 7 was current. I bought my Power Mac 7500 with a 1GB drive and System 7.5.2 in late 1995, as Copland was in development. HFS+ didn't arrive until Mac OS 8, and good old HFS was kind of creaking with the larger drives.

That said, a lot of this section should probably be revised or removed, because it reads more like commentary/argument than encyclopedic text. MFNickster (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

narrative mode?
FTA:Later that summer the situation was no better, and Amelio realized something serious had to be done.

♠ ♥ Trickrick1985  ♦ ♣+2¢ :: log 18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Gershwin
The Gershwin operating system wiki page is woefully sparse; as it's probably not referenced from anywhere but this article, IMHO it would be best to simply put Gershwin as a small section here.--C xong (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree The Gershwin operating system link should then redirect here. MFNickster (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Gershwin was never more than a vague idea of ‘what will happen after Copland’, and isn’t independently notable. For that matter, the existing article seems to suggest (erroneously) that Gershwin was a project pursued after the failure of Copland. David Arthur (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merged. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Date of cancellation?
The article now states Copland was cancelled in August 1996, using Macworld as its source. It seems that the news was not made public at the time. Sometime around Christmas 1996 TIME magazine says MacOS 8 had been thrown into the "binhex of destiny". The situation is still unclear to Dr. Dobb's Journal in January 1997: Can we find contemporary sources for these events? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Looks like it was mid-August 1996 when Apple announced on their dev site (http://devworld.apple.com/devnews/devnews0808.html ) that Copland DR1 would not ship, and system releases would become incremental. Then, on August 29, the Wall Street Journal spilled the beans that Apple was talking to Be, Inc.. MFNickster (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Neither of the two sources referenced says Mac OS8 has been canceled, only that it would be "released incrementally". If Apple had made the final decision in August I guess they wanted to avoid the "Elop Effect". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 * True, but I'm not sure even Apple knew what they were going to do at that point. They were obviously committed to shipping parts of Copland, but the idea of "Mac OS 8" as a monolithic release went out the window when DR1 was canceled. Add to that the overtures toward Be and NeXT, and Apple saying they would announce their "new OS strategy" in January 1997, it was pretty clear that the old strategy (Copland) was dead. They had nothing to offer developers who had been ramping up for it. If you're looking for a source from Apple that says "we have canceled development on Copland," I doubt you'll find one. MFNickster (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pink, Blue and Red meeting
The article states this meeting took place in March 1987, and that Singh erroneously says 1988. I checked Jim Carlton's book Apple: The Inside Story... and he also says March 1988. Do we have any other sources on this? MFNickster (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On p. 99 of Carlton's book, he writes, "By October 1988, Pink had been underway for about six months." MFNickster (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to address this? Is there any reason to pick Linzmayer's date as "correct" rather than Singh's & Carlton's? MFNickster (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, since nobody else has looked into this, I can report that some sources say 1987 (Linzmayer, Tom Hormby) and others 1988 (Singh, Potel, Roy Allan, Apple Museum). Carlton's book says both, in different places. Given that the Pink team moved into the Bubb Road offices when the Newton team was already there, having moved in late 1987, I'm going to change this to 1988. MFNickster (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs to talk about Newton
The reason Copland was so Fd up was that the Mac was supposed to be dead by 1994, replaced by large-scale Newton devices. Newton devices being touch screen Lisp Machines.
 * I am unaware of any documentary evidence to back up this claim, and as someone who was on the alpha/beta cycle, I certainly don't recall any plans to this effect. Newtons are completely unlike LMs, they have much more in common with JavaScript, via SELF. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Was there a red? Or just pink?
Can anyone definitely confirm the existence of red cards separate from pink? I see many histories containing mention of blue and pink, but only one saying red. I am concerned that someone at the original meeting was interviewed years later and talked about red cards, but was in fact talking about the pink set. I'm doubly concerned because one can go to a dollar store today and see white, off-yellow, light blue and pink index cards. No red. And this has been true since I was a kid. I wouldn't be surprised to find, yes, there really are red index cards available for purchase, but at first glance, it would seem someone was talking about the same ones everyone else called pink. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Maury. Checking the sources I have, Hormby, Carlton and Singh all refer to pink, blue and red cards. Linzmeyer and Potel only mention pink and blue. BUT Carlton gives a quote from Erich Ringewald who initiated the Pink project saying they chose red for the really advanced features because it was "pinker than Pink." I don't think there's any reason to redact the description we currently have, unless we find an alternate source quoting someone who was there, indicating that there were in fact no red cards. MFNickster (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, none of the sources I have mention this. The quote is nice and should go in the article IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in the Taligent article if you want to steal it from there! MFNickster (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Copland (operating system)


text:
San Bernardino (disambiguation)

San Bernardino is a large city in the Inland Empire Metropolitan Area of Southern California.

San Bernardino may also refer to:

Churches

 * San Bernardino alle Ossa, a church in Milan, Italy
 * San Bernardino (Verona), a church in Verona, Italy
 * San Bernardino, Rimini, a church in Rimini, Italy
 * San Bernardino, Urbino, a church in Urbino, Italy
 * San Bernardino Realino, a church in Carpi, Italy
 * Basilica of San Bernardino, a church in L'Aquila, Italy
 * San Bernardino in Panisperna, a church in Rome, Italy
 * Oratory of San Bernardino, Siena
 * San Bernardino da Siena, Carpi
 * San Bernardino de Siena Church, Xochimilco, Mexico
 * San Bernardino, Asciano

Landforms

 * San Bernardino (torrent), a torrent that flows through the Italian province of Verbano-Cusio-Ossola
 * San Bernardino Pass, a high mountain pass in the Swiss Alps
 * San Bernardino River, in Sonora, Mexico
 * San Bernardino Strait, a strait in the Philippines
 * San Bernardino Valley, California
 * San Bernardino Valley (Arizona)
 * San Bernardino Mountains, California
 * Little San Bernardino Mountains, California
 * San Bernardino National Forest, California
 * San Gorgonio Pass, California, sometimes referenced as the San Bernardino Pass

People

 * Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444), Italian priest, Franciscan missionary, and Catholic saint

Guatemala

 * San Bernardino, Suchitepéquez

Mexico

 * San Bernardino Contla, two nearby villages in Tlaxcala, Mexico
 * San Bernardino, Chihuahua
 * San Bernardino, Texcoco, State of Mexico
 * San Bernardino, Oaxaca
 * San Bernardino Lagunas, Puebla
 * San Bernardino, Sonora
 * San Bernardino, Yucatán

Paraguay

 * San Bernardino, Paraguay
 * San Bernardino District, Paraguay, a district of the Cordillera department

Peru

 * San Bernardino District, San Pablo

Switzerland

 * San Bernardino, Switzerland

United States

 * San Bernardino County, California

Venezuela

 * San Bernardino, Libertador, Caracas, a parish of Libertador

Transportation

 * San Bernardino (Amtrak station), a passenger rail station in San Bernardino, California
 * San Bernardino Transit Center, a passenger rail station and bus terminal in San Bernardino, California
 * San Bernardino Freeway, designation for Interstate 10 connecting San Bernardino with Los Angeles
 * San Bernardino International Airport, a public airport in San Bernardino, California
 * San Bernardino Tunnel, on the A13 motorway in Switzerland
 * San Bernardino and San Diego Railway, now part of the Pacific Surfliner route between San Diego and Los Angeles

Other uses

 * San Bernardino Valley College, a community college located in San Bernardino, California
 * California State University, San Bernardino
 * San Bernardino de Sena Estancia, a ranch outpost of Mission San Gabriel Arcángel in Redlands, California
 * San Bernardino Ranch, a historic ranch in the southern San Bernardino Valley
 * San Bernardino meridian, one of three Principal meridians in the state of California
 * USS San Bernardino, two warships of the United States Navy

title: San Bernardino (disambiguation)


text:
Endothelium

The endothelium (: endothelia) is a single layer of squamous endothelial cells that line the interior surface of blood vessels and lymphatic vessels. The endothelium forms an interface between circulating blood or lymph in the lumen and the rest of the vessel wall. Endothelial cells form the barrier between vessels and tissue and control the flow of substances and fluid into and out of a tissue.

Endothelial cells in direct contact with blood are called vascular endothelial cells whereas those in direct contact with lymph are known as lymphatic endothelial cells. Vascular endothelial cells line the entire circulatory system, from the heart to the smallest capillaries.

These cells have unique functions that include fluid filtration, such as in the glomerulus of the kidney, blood vessel tone, hemostasis, neutrophil recruitment, and hormone trafficking. Endothelium of the interior surfaces of the heart chambers is called endocardium. An impaired function can lead to serious health issues throughout the body.

Structure
The endothelium is a thin layer of single flat (squamous) cells that line the interior surface of blood vessels and lymphatic vessels.

Endothelium is of mesodermal origin. Both blood and lymphatic capillaries are composed of a single layer of endothelial cells called a monolayer. In straight sections of a blood vessel, vascular endothelial cells typically align and elongate in the direction of fluid flow.

Terminology
The foundational model of anatomy, an index of terms used to describe anatomical structures, makes a distinction between endothelial cells and epithelial cells on the basis of which tissues they develop from, and states that the presence of vimentin rather than keratin filaments separates these from epithelial cells. Many considered the endothelium a specialized epithelial tissue.

Function
The endothelium forms an interface between circulating blood or lymph in the lumen and the rest of the vessel wall. This forms a barrier between vessels and tissues and control the flow of substances and fluid into and out of a tissue. This controls the passage of materials and the transit of white blood cells into and out of the bloodstream. Excessive or prolonged increases in permeability of the endothelium, as in cases of chronic inflammation, may lead to tissue swelling (edema). Altered barrier function is also implicated in cancer extravasation.

Endothelial cells are involved in many other aspects of vessel function, including:
 * Blood clotting (thrombosis and fibrinolysis). Under normal conditions, the endothelium provides a surface on which blood does not clot, because it contains and expresses substances that prevent clotting, including heparan sulfate which acts as a cofactor for activating antithrombin, a protein that inactivates several factors in the coagulation cascade.
 * Inflammation. Endothelial cells actively signal to white blood cells of the immune system during inflammation
 * Formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis).
 * Constriction and enlargement of the blood vessel, called vasoconstriction and vasodilation, and hence the control of blood pressure

Blood vessel formation
The endothelium is involved in the formation of new blood vessels, called angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is a crucial process for development of organs in the embryo and fetus, as well as repair of damaged areas. The process is triggered by decreased tissue oxygen (hypoxia) or insufficient oxygen tension leading to the new development of blood vessels lined with endothelial cells. Angiogenesis is regulated by signals that promote and decrease the process. These pro- and antiangiogenic signals including integrins, chemokines, angiopoietins, oxygen sensing agents, junctional molecules and endogenous inhibitors. Angiopoietin-2 works with VEGF to facilitate cell proliferation and migration of endothelial cells.

The general outline of angiogenesis is
 * activating signals binding to surface receptors of vascular endothelial cells.
 * activated endothelial cells release proteases leading to the degradation of the basement membrane
 * endothelial cells are freed to migrate from the existing blood vessels and begin to proliferate to form extensions towards the source of the angiogenic stimulus.

Host immune response
Endothelial cells express a variety of immune genes in an organ-specific manner. These genes include critical immune mediators and proteins that facilitate cellular communication with hematopoietic immune cells. Endothelial cells encode important features of the structural cell immune response in the epigenome and can therefore respond swiftly to immunological challenges. The contribution to host immunity by non-hematopoietic cells, such as endothelium, is called “structural immunity”.

Clinical significance
Endothelial dysfunction, or the loss of proper endothelial function, is a hallmark for vascular diseases, and is often regarded as a key early event in the development of atherosclerosis. Impaired endothelial function, causing hypertension and thrombosis, is often seen in patients with coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, as well as in smokers. Endothelial dysfunction has also been shown to be predictive of future adverse cardiovascular events including stroke, heart disease, and is also present in inflammatory disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and systemic lupus erythematosus.

Endothelial dysfunction is a result of changes in endothelial function. After fat (lipid) accumulation and when stimulated by inflammation, endothelial cells become activated, which is characterized by the expression of molecules such as E-selectin, VCAM-1 and ICAM-1, which stimulate the adhesion of immune cells. Additionally, transcription factors, which are substances which act to increase the production of proteins within cells, become activated; specifically AP-1 and NF-κB, leading to increased expression of cytokines such as IL-1, TNFα and IFNγ, which promotes inflammation. This state of endothelial cells promotes accumulation of lipids and lipoproteins in the intima, leading to atherosclerosis, and the subsequent recruitment of white blood cells and platelets, as well as proliferation of smooth muscle cells, leading to the formation of a fatty streak. The lesions formed in the intima, and persistent inflammation lead to desquamation of endothelium, which disrupts the endothelial barrier, leading to injury and consequent dysfunction. In contrast, inflammatory stimuli also activate NF-κB-induced expression of the deubiquitinase A20 (TNFAIP3), which has been shown to intrinsically repair the endothelial barrier.

One of the main mechanisms of endothelial dysfunction is the diminishing of nitric oxide, often due to high levels of asymmetric dimethylarginine, which interfere with the normal L-arginine-stimulated nitric oxide synthesis and so leads to hypertension. The most prevailing mechanism of endothelial dysfunction is an increase in reactive oxygen species, which can impair nitric oxide production and activity via several mechanisms. The signalling protein ERK5 is essential for maintaining normal endothelial cell function. A further consequence of damage to the endothelium is the release of pathological quantities of von Willebrand factor, which promote platelet aggregation and adhesion to the subendothelium, and thus the formation of potentially fatal thrombi.

Angiosarcoma is cancer of the endothelium and is rare with only 300 cases per year in the US. However it generally has poor prognosis with a five-year survival rate of 35%.

Endothelium in cancer
It has been recognised that endothelial cells building tumour vasculature have distinct morphological characteristics, different origin compared to physiological endothelium, and distinct molecular signature, which gives an opportunity for implementation of new biomarkers of tumour angiogenesis and could provide new anti-angiogenic druggable targets.

Endothelium in diet
A healthy diet abundant in fruits and vegetables has a beneficial impact on endothelial function, whilst a diet high in red and processed meats, fried foods, refined grains and processed sugar increases adhesion endothelial cells and atherogenic promoters. High-fat diets adversely affect the endothelial function.

A Mediterranean diet has been found to improve endothelial function in adults which can reduce risk of cardiovascular disease. Walnut consumption improves endothelial function.

Endothelium in Covid-19
In April 2020, the presence of viral elements in endothelial cells of 3 patients who had died of COVID-19 was reported for the first time. The researchers from the University of Zurich and Harvard Medical School considered these findings to be a sign of a general endotheliitis in different organs, an inflammatory response of the endothelium to the infection that can lead or at least contribute to multi-organ failure in Covid-19 patients with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

History
In 1865, the Swiss anatomist Wilhelm His first coin the term “endothelium”. In 1958, A. S. Todd of the University of St Andrews demonstrated that endothelium in human blood vessels have fibrinolytic activity.

title: Endothelium


text:
Azimuthal quantum number

In quantum mechanics, the azimuthal quantum number $ℓ$ is a quantum number for an atomic orbital that determines its orbital angular momentum and describes aspects of the angular shape of the orbital. The azimuthal quantum number is the second of a set of quantum numbers that describe the unique quantum state of an electron (the others being the principal quantum number $n$, the magnetic quantum number $ℓ$, and the spin quantum number $n$).

For a given value of the principal quantum number $mℓ$ (electron shell), the possible values of $ms$ are the integers from 0 to $n − 1$. For instance, the $n = 1$ shell has only orbitals with $$\ell=0$$, and the $n = 2$ shell has only orbitals with $$\ell=0$$, and $$\ell=1$$.

For a given value of the azimuthal quantum number $n$, the possible values of the magnetic quantum number $ℓ$ are the integers from $mℓ=-ℓ$ to $mℓ=+ℓ$, including 0. In addition, the spin quantum number $ℓ$ can take two distinct values. The set of orbitals associated with a particular value of $mℓ$ are sometimes collectively called a subshell.

While originally used just for isolated atoms, atomic-like orbitals play a key role in the configuration of electrons in compounds including gases, liquids and solids. The quantum number $ms$ plays an important role here via the connection to the angular dependence of the spherical harmonics for the different orbitals around each atom.

Nomenclature
The term "azimuthal quantum number" was introduced by Arnold Sommerfeld in 1915 as part of an ad hoc description of the energy structure of atomic spectra. Only later with the quantum model of the atom was it understood that this number, $ℓ$, arises from quantization of orbital angular momentum. Some textbooks and the ISO standard 80000-10:2019 call $ℓ$ the orbital angular momentum quantum number.

The energy levels of an atom in an external magnetic field depend upon the $ℓ$ value so it is sometimes called the magnetic quantum number.

The lowercase letter $ℓ$, is used to denote the orbital angular momentum of a single particle. For a system with multiple particles, the capital letter $mℓ$ is used.

Relation to atomic orbitals
There are four quantum numbers—n, ℓ, mℓ, ms— connected with the energy states of an isolated atom's electrons. These four numbers specify the unique and complete quantum state of any single electron in the atom, and they combine to compose the electron's wavefunction, or orbital.

When solving to obtain the wave function, the Schrödinger equation resolves into three equations that lead to the first three quantum numbers, meaning that the three equations are interrelated. The azimuthal quantum number arises in solving the polar part of the wave equation—relying on the spherical coordinate system, which generally works best with models having sufficient aspects of spherical symmetry.

An electron's angular momentum, $ħ$, is related to its quantum number $L$ by the following equation: $$\mathbf{L}^2\Psi = \hbar^2 \ell(\ell + 1) \Psi,$$ where $ℓ$ is the reduced Planck constant, $ħ$ is the orbital angular momentum operator and $$\Psi$$ is the wavefunction of the electron. The quantum number $L$ is always a non-negative integer: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. (Notably, $ℓ$ has no real meaning except in its use as the angular momentum operator; thus, it is standard practice to use the quantum number $L$ when referring to angular momentum).

Atomic orbitals have distinctive shapes, (see top graphic) in which letters, s, p, d, f, etc, (employing a convention originating in spectroscopy) denote the shape of the atomic orbital. The wavefunctions of these orbitals take the form of spherical harmonics, and so are described by Legendre polynomials. The several orbitals relating to the different (integer) values of ℓ are sometimes called sub-shells—referred to by lowercase Latin letters chosen for historical reasons—as shown in the table "Quantum subshells for the azimuthal quantum number".

Each of the different angular momentum states can take 2(2ℓ + 1) electrons. This is because the third quantum number mℓ (which can be thought of loosely as the quantized projection of the angular momentum vector on the z-axis) runs from −ℓ to ℓ in integer units, and so there are 2ℓ + 1 possible states. Each distinct n, ℓ, mℓ orbital can be occupied by two electrons with opposing spins (given by the quantum number ms = ±1⁄2), giving 2(2ℓ + 1) electrons overall. Orbitals with higher ℓ than given in the table are perfectly permissible, but these values cover all atoms so far discovered.

For a given value of the principal quantum number n, the possible values of ℓ range from 0 to $ℓ$; therefore, the $n − 1$ shell only possesses an s subshell and can only take 2 electrons, the $n = 1$ shell possesses an s and a p subshell and can take 8 electrons overall, the $n = 2$ shell possesses s, p, and d subshells and has a maximum of 18 electrons, and so on.

A simplistic one-electron model results in energy levels depending on the principal number alone. In more complex atoms these energy levels split for all $n = 3$, placing states of higher ℓ above states of lower ℓ. For example, the energy of 2p is higher than of 2s, 3d occurs higher than 3p, which in turn is above 3s, etc. This effect eventually forms the block structure of the periodic table. No known atom possesses an electron having ℓ higher than three (f) in its ground state.

The angular momentum quantum number, ℓ and the corresponding spherical harmonic govern the number of planar nodes going through the nucleus. A planar node can be described in an electromagnetic wave as the midpoint between crest and trough, which has zero magnitudes. In an s orbital, no nodes go through the nucleus, therefore the corresponding azimuthal quantum number ℓ takes the value of 0. In a p orbital, one node traverses the nucleus and therefore ℓ has the value of 1. $$L$$ has the value $$\sqrt{2}\hbar$$.

Depending on the value of n, there is an angular momentum quantum number ℓ and the following series. The wavelengths listed are for a hydrogen atom: $n = 1, L = 0$, Lyman series (ultraviolet)

$n = 2, L = \sqrt{2}\hbar$, Balmer series (visible)

$n = 3, L = \sqrt{6}\hbar$, Ritz–Paschen series (near infrared)

$n = 4, L = 2\sqrt{3}\hbar$, Brackett series (short-wavelength infrared)

$n = 5, L = 2\sqrt{5}\hbar$, Pfund series (mid-wavelength infrared).

Addition of quantized angular momenta
Given a quantized total angular momentum $$\mathbf{j}$$ that is the sum of two individual quantized angular momenta $$\boldsymbol{\ell}_1$$ and $$\boldsymbol{\ell}_2$$, $$\mathbf{j} = \boldsymbol{\ell}_1 + \boldsymbol{\ell}_2$$ the quantum number $$j$$ associated with its magnitude can range from $$|\ell_1 - \ell_2|$$ to $$\ell_1 + \ell_2$$ in integer steps where $$\ell_1$$ and $$\ell_2$$ are quantum numbers corresponding to the magnitudes of the individual angular momenta.

Total angular momentum of an electron in the atom

Due to the spin–orbit interaction in an atom, the orbital angular momentum no longer commutes with the Hamiltonian, nor does the spin. These therefore change over time. However the total angular momentum $n > 1$ does commute with the one-electron Hamiltonian and so is constant. $J$ is defined as $$\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{L} + \mathbf{S}$$ $J$ being the orbital angular momentum and $L$ the spin. The total angular momentum satisfies the same commutation relations as orbital angular momentum, namely $$[J_i, J_j ] = i \hbar \varepsilon_{ijk} J_k$$ from which it follows that $$\left[J_i, J^2 \right] = 0$$ where $S$ stand for $J_{i}$, $J_{x}$, and $J_{y}$.

The quantum numbers describing the system, which are constant over time, are now $J_{z}$ and $j$, defined through the action of $m_{j}$ on the wavefunction $$\Psi$$ $$\begin{align} \mathbf{J}^2\Psi &= \hbar^2 j(j+1) \Psi \\[1ex] \mathbf{J}_z\Psi &= \hbar m_j\Psi \end{align}$$

So that $J$ is related to the norm of the total angular momentum and $j$ to its projection along a specified axis. The j number has a particular importance for relativistic quantum chemistry, often featuring in subscript in for deeper states near to the core for which spin-orbit coupling is important.

As with any angular momentum in quantum mechanics, the projection of $m_{j}$ along other axes cannot be co-defined with $J$, because they do not commute. The eigenvectors of $J_{z}$, $j$, $s$ and parity, which are also eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian, are linear combinations of the eigenvectors of $m_{j}$, $ℓ$, $s$ and $m_{ℓ}$.

Beyond isolated atoms
The angular momentum quantum numbers strictly refer to isolated atoms. However, they have wider uses for atoms in solids, liquids or gases. The $m_{s}$ quantum number corresponds to specific spherical harmonics and are commonly used to describe features observed in spectroscopic methods such as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and electron energy loss spectroscopy. (The notation is slightly different, with X-ray notation where K, L, M are used for excitations out of electron states with $$n=0, 1, 2$$.)

The angular momentum quantum numbers are also used when the electron states are described in methods such as Kohn–Sham density functional theory or with gaussian orbitals. For instance, in silicon the electronic properties used in semiconductor device are due to the p-like states with $$l=1$$ centered at each atom, while many properties of transition metals depend upon the d-like states with $$l=2$$.

History
The azimuthal quantum number was carried over from the Bohr model of the atom, and was posited by Arnold Sommerfeld. The Bohr model was derived from spectroscopic analysis of atoms in combination with the Rutherford atomic model. The lowest quantum level was found to have an angular momentum of zero. Orbits with zero angular momentum were considered as oscillating charges in one dimension and so described as "pendulum" orbits, but were not found in nature. In three-dimensions the orbits become spherical without any nodes crossing the nucleus, similar (in the lowest-energy state) to a skipping rope that oscillates in one large circle.

title: Azimuthal quantum number


text:
House of Alpin

The House of Alpin, also known as the Alpinid dynasty, Clann Chináeda, and Clann Chinaeda meic Ailpín, was the kin-group which ruled in Pictland, possibly Dál Riata, and then the kingdom of Alba from Constantine II (Causantín mac Áeda) in the 940s until the death of Malcolm II (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda) in 1034.

Kings traced their descent from Kenneth MacAlpin (and not from his father, Alpín mac Echdach), and Irish genealogies in the Book of Ballymote and the Book of Lecan refer to the kindred as Clann Cináeda meic Ailpín by prioritising descent from Kenneth.

The origins of the family are uncertain. Later genealogies make Kenneth a descendant of Áed Find. While plausible, such claims are unprovable and appear only in the late tenth century. The associated idea that Kenneth had been a king in Dál Riata before he contended successfully for power in Pictland in the 840s, following the death of Eóganán mac Óengusa, is supported by nearly contemporary evidence.

Early kings of Clann Cináeda meic Ailpín are described as kings of the Picts, and the third king, Kenneth's son Constantine I (Causantín mac Cináeda), appears to have been regarded as the last of the 70 Pictish kings soon after his death. The descendants of Kenneth were ousted in 878, when Constantine I's brother, Áed mac Cináeda, was killed by Giric mac Dúngail, but they returned in 889, when Constantine I's son Donald II (Domnall mac Causantín) ascended the throne upon the death or deposition of Giric. Donald II and his successors are described as kings of Alba.

During the tenth century, succession alternated between the descendants of Constantine I and those of Áed. Internecine strife in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries left the descendants of Constantine I unchallenged by male-line descendants of Kenneth MacAlpin, but Malcolm II left no male heirs. On Malcolm's death, the line of kings descended from Kenneth came to an end. Future kings, while still tracing their descent from Kenneth, were descended from Malcolm's daughter Bethóc and her husband Crinan of Dunkeld.

title: House of Alpin


text:
Sand Fork

Sand Fork may refer to:

 * Sand Fork (Little Kanawha River), a stream in West Virginia
 * Sand Fork, West Virginia, a town

title: Sand Fork


text:
Sand flea

Sand flea may refer to:

 * Arthropoda of the class Insecta:
 * Sandfly
 * Chigoe flea Tunga penetrans
 * Crustacea of the class Malacostraca:
 * Talitridae
 * Emerita (crustacean), also known as mole crab
 * Culicoides furens, a biting midge known colloquially as "sand fleas", particularly in the Southeastern U.S.
 * Operation Sand Flea, US operations in Panama

title: Sand flea


text:
Miles Martinet

The Miles M.25 Martinet was a target tug aircraft of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Fleet Air Arm (FAA) that was in service during the Second World War. It was the first British aircraft to be designed specifically for target towing.

Work on the Martinet was started in response to the RAF's shortage of obsolete frontline aircraft for target towing duties. A derivative of the Master trainer, it was designed to have as much commonality with existing production aircraft as possible. The first prototype Martinet made its maiden flight on 24 April 1942; quantity production started immediately. A total of 1,724 Martinets were produced, of which the majority were operated either by the RAF or FAA, although some were used by overseas and civilian operators.

The Martinet was also developed into a relatively secret aircraft in response to Specification Q.10/43, which called for a radio-controlled target drone. This aircraft, designated the M.50 Queen Martinet, was only produced in small numbers, and its existence was a state secret until 1946. Several other derivatives of the basic airframe were also produced, including a dedicated glider tug and a trainer variant.

Origins
Before 1941, the target tug role had been met by reusing former frontline aircraft which had either become obsolete or were surplus to requirements. However, while the crucial Battle of Britain was being waged and attrition rates were driven high amongst either side, the RAF found itself with a shortage of frontline aircraft. Seeking to avoid withdrawing existing combat-capable aircraft to perform as target tugs, the Air Ministry opted to procure new build aircraft specifically for this need, approaching Miles Aircraft Ltd with a request to rapidly produce a specialised target tug aircraft based upon the Miles Master trainer aircraft.

The requirements were formalised by the Ministry as Specification 12/41. Amongst the listed requirements was a stipulation that, in order simplify manufacturing as much as possible, the envisioned aircraft ought maximise the use of standardised components wherever feasible.

On 24 April 1942, the first prototype Martinet made its maiden flight from Woodley Aerodrome, flown by chief test pilot Flight Lieutenant Thomas Rose. Results were satisfactory enough for production to begin immediately, leading to the Martinet rapidly supplanting the Master II on Miles' assembly lines at Woodley. In total 1,724 Martinets were produced; the majority of which served with either the RAF or Fleet Air Arm (FAA), although a minority of the type were adopted by overseas operators as well during the post war era.

Further development
The Martinet became the basis for further projects by the company. During 1943, it was decided to produce a derivative of the Martinet that functioned as a radio-controlled target drone to meet Specification Q.10/43. This variant, designated M.50 Queen Martinet, was quickly prototyped and a modest production contact was issued to Miles, leading to 69 examples being manufactured as a new-builds, while a further 17 aircraft were produced via the conversion of production Martinets. During its development and initial years of operation, the existence of the Queen Martinet was classified and the programme was held on the UK Government's Secrets List; it was first publicly displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in June 1946, although details about the type remained protected for a number of years thereafter.

By 1941, officials were considered a proposed improved model of the Master trainer, but such ambitions were sidelined to focus manufacturing resources on the standard Martinet model. By 1945, production pressures had alleviated to the point where serious work could commence, thus Miles set about developing a trainer model of the aircraft, designated M.37 Martinet Trainer. From the onset, this aircraft was intended to be a stopgap measure as the Air Ministry had envisioned its long term trainer to harness turboprop propulsion. The conversion involved the removal of the outboard wing fuel tanks, the installation of a revised cabin with dual controls fitted, and a reduction in overall weight. A pair of prototypes were built, the first of which made its maiden flight on 11 April 1946. However, by the time it was ready for quantity production, more advanced trainers, such as the Avro Athena and Boulton Paul Balliol, had also reached an advanced stage of development, leaving no purpose for the type and thus it received no orders.

A more numerous variant of the Martinet was the adaption of the type for operating as a tug for gliders; it shared broad similarities to the Master II tug, the rudder having its lower portion removed along with the installation of stronger towing apparatus.

Design
The Miles Martinet draws heavily upon the Miles Master II trainer aircraft. While the two aircraft shared a relatively high degree of commonality, particularly in terms of components, there were also major differences, including the strengthening of the airframe to better handle the stresses of towing a target drogue. Other differences from the Master included a longer nose, greater wingspan, and higher cockpit, while the dual flying controls of the Master were omitted as unnecessary in its new capacity.

Both the targets and towing gear were contained in a fairing beneath the fuselage, which could be deployed and retracted by a winch; multiple implementations of this apparatus were used, including winches that were alternatively driven via electric motors or wind power. Due to the aircraft's centre of gravity being altered by the design modifications, the engine was brought forwards slightly to compensate; while a more heavy-duty cooling system was also installed to aid the engine in coping with the greater power output needed to offset the elevated drag that was induced while towing.

Operational history
Numerous RAF units received Martinets during the Second World War. Specifically, the type became a staple of air gunnery schools, operational training units, anti-aircraft cooperation squadrons, and air-sea reconnaissance units.

During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the type was gradually withdrawn from service within Britain's armed forces. A total of five former RAF Martinets received civil registrations and were flown by civilians both in Britain and overseas. Efforts were made to promote surplus Martinet to fulfil additional roles, one such proposal involved the type's adoption by the Royal Hellenic Air Force to perform missions such as artillery spotting, general observation, and close air support.

Variants

 * M.25 Martinet: Two-seat target tug aircraft.
 * Martinet TT.Mk I:Service designation for the target tug M.25.
 * M.50 Queen Martinet: Unmanned radio-controlled target drone; 11 built and 58 converted from TT.1s.
 * M.37 Martinet Trainer: Two-seat training aircraft; two converted from TT.1s.

Operators

 * Belgian Air Force (11 operated from 1947 to 1953 as target tugs)
 * French Air Force – 41 Martinet TT.1s were delivered between 1945 and 1948.
 * Irish Air Corps – two Martinet TT.1s were delivered in 1946.
 * Portuguese Navy
 * Portuguese Air Force
 * Svensk Flygtjänst AB (9 bought, 8 used as target tugs 1946–1951)
 * Turkish Air Force
 * Royal Air Force
 * Portuguese Air Force
 * Svensk Flygtjänst AB (9 bought, 8 used as target tugs 1946–1951)
 * Turkish Air Force
 * Royal Air Force
 * Turkish Air Force
 * Royal Air Force
 * Royal Air Force

 * No. 5 Squadron RAF
 * No. 20 Squadron RAF
 * No. 34 Squadron RAF
 * No. 269 Squadron RAF
 * No. 285 Squadron RAF
 * No. 286 Squadron RAF
 * No. 287 Squadron RAF
 * No. 289 Squadron RAF
 * No. 290 Squadron RAF
 * No. 291 Squadron RAF
 * No. 520 Squadron RAF
 * No. 567 Squadron RAF
 * No. 577 Squadron RAF
 * No. 587 Squadron RAF
 * No. 595 Squadron RAF
 * No. 598 Squadron RAF
 * No. 631 Squadron RAF
 * No. 639 Squadron RAF
 * No. 650 Squadron RAF
 * No. 679 Squadron RAF
 * No. 691 Squadron RAF
 * No. 695 Squadron RAF

Data from:
 * Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm

 * 718 Naval Air Squadron
 * 722 Naval Air Squadron
 * 723 Naval Air Squadron
 * 725 Naval Air Squadron
 * 726 Naval Air Squadron
 * 728 Naval Air Squadron
 * 733 Naval Air Squadron
 * 736 Naval Air Squadron
 * 740 Naval Air Squadron
 * 766 Naval Air Squadron
 * 770 Naval Air Squadron
 * 771 Naval Air Squadron
 * 772 Naval Air Squadron
 * 773 Naval Air Squadron
 * 775 Naval Air Squadron
 * 776 Naval Air Squadron
 * 779 Naval Air Squadron
 * 789 Naval Air Squadron
 * 792 Naval Air Squadron
 * 793 Naval Air Squadron
 * 794 Naval Air Squadron
 * 797 Naval Air Squadron

Surviving aircraft
A single Martinet survives; it is owned by the Museum of Berkshire Aviation in the United Kingdom. The aircraft (RAF serial number MS902) was built in 1943, and spent its operational life in Iceland at RAF Reykjavik. In 1949, MS902 was sold to the Akureyri Flying Club and given the Icelandic civil registration TF-SHC. The club flew it until it crashed in 1951 near Kopasker in north-east Iceland. The wreckage remained at the crash site until 1977, when it was recovered and placed in storage by the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society.

The aircraft was returned to the United Kingdom in 1996 by the Museum of Berkshire Aviation and has since been the subject of a lengthy restoration project.

title: Miles Martinet


text:
Penelope Pitstop

Penelope Pitstop is a fictional character who appeared in the 1968 Hanna-Barbera animated series Wacky Races and the spin-off The Perils of Penelope Pitstop, and was voiced by Janet Waldo. She also appeared in the 2017 reboot of Wacky Races.

Background
Penelope "Penny" Pitstop is an attractive southern belle, and the only female racer in the original Wacky Races lineup, driving a pink feminine car known as The Compact Pussycat which has personal grooming facilities that would sometimes backfire on other racers, such as shampoo foam hitting their faces. She always has time to relax and worry about her looks, because her car is like a beauty parlor. Penelope Pitstop also has a habit of holding her arm out in the breeze to dry newly applied nail polish, which the others mistake for a turn signal (this habit once sent the Roaring Plenty into a cactus).

Peter Perfect had a crush on her, a feeling that was returned, and always tried to help her; in "Dash to Delaware", they almost end up married. In the 2006 TV short, Wacky Races Forever, it is revealed that she had two children with Peter Perfect.

Unlike other drivers, Penelope rarely was targeted by the other racers (except Dick Dastardly of course), as it seems they also liked and tried to help her as Peter did. Penny was always thankful for their assistance and was perhaps the most peaceful racer on the track, though she twice gave the Creepy Coupe's dragon and serpent a good bashing with her umbrella. In the 2017 version, she eventually shows martial arts skills.

Penelope also had her own cartoon series, The Perils of Penelope Pitstop, which also featured her rescuers the Ant Hill Mob. Her sworn enemy is the Hooded Claw (who is the secret identity of her own guardian, Sylvester Sneekly). Although she is blind to the fact her guardian is her nemesis in disguise, she is very smart and often manages to get herself out of trouble before her true guardians the Ant Hill Mob can get to her in time.

Appearance
In Wacky Races, Penelope has long blond hair in a full fringe. She wears a purple racer helmet with goggles. She also wears a dark pink rider jacket with a purple turtleneck and purple gloves, pink skirt with red pants underneath and white boots.

In The Perils of Penelope Pitstop, Penelope's eyes resemble those of Daphne Blake, and she wears red lipstick. She wears a slight alteration to her Wacky Races wardrobe. Her helmet is replaced by a magenta pilot helmet with matching white goggles. She wears a hot pink long-sleeved jacket with a matching belt and long magenta scarf, which is hanging loose on the right side. Even though she still wears her red pants and white boots from Wacky Races, her gloves are now white.

In the 2017 sequel to the original Wacky Races, she also has an evil twin sister named Pandora Pitstop.

title: Penelope Pitstop