This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Tudoreanu likes to do a lot of editing. He edits and edits and edits. But does he create? Does he reference? Does he quote?
Look at his contrib list. What does he know of the Classical World? Does he read Aristotle, Cicero or any Classical Scholar? None whatsoever. But he does feel himself qualified to edit things out he has no comphrension of.
Please Mr. Tudoreanu leave off the editing until you have read the material yourself and did some research on the subject. WHEELER 18:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia's naming conventions, I think the article's name should be changed to something like 'Family as a State paradigm'. Any opinions out there? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I don't care either way. I just chose the shortest thing I could think of. WHEELER 01:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, it's done. I think that I've changed all the internal links from other articles. Now to get on with improving the article. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It looks good. And since I see that you are a Latin speaker maybe there is a single Latin word for this or a Greek word for this we can use. But it looks good. Thanks. WHEELER 17:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have adapted WHEELER's text en bloc to add some weight to the jejune article Paternalism, which seemed to be sketching out a simple-minded context for abortion issues. I toned down WHEELER's characteristically emphatic tone and eliminated all claims that might be attacked as a POV that did not suit our prejudices. I think that when one googles "Family/State paradigm", comes up with no "hits" and attempts on that basis to efface the entry, perhaps there is more motivating force than immediately meets the eye. -- Wetman 21:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to transfer a comment from [Paternalism] to here:
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paternalism"
I don't think "Paternalism is a right word for this subject matter. I may have gotten the title wrong, i.e. "Family/State paradigm", but I don't think that "paternalism" is the right word for this. I am up for a better title. "Family state paradigm" has the meaning that "of the influence of family structure as a paradigm for state organization". Now what word that does encapsulate this meaning, I am all for. WHEELER 21:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"In hierarchal societies, one finds hierarchal families and hierarchal governments ("I order you to ..."). In consensus societies, one finds consensus families and consensus governments ("Hey, don't I get a vote on that?"). States and families are both governed according to cultural ideas about appropriate power relations and thus necessarily mirror each other in any given culture. Diversity of all kinds abounds (e.g. a soldier's family in a liberal democracy)." 4.250.138.88 23:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Editors . Censors delete. Was there truly nothing in the offered text that satisfied Mel Etitis' personal POV, which is apparently in full control here? How about the following: "States and families are both governed according to cultural norms of appropriate power relations and thus tend to mirror one another. In hierarchical societies hierarchic families are the norm; in consensual societies one tends to find consensual families, though diversity abounds." That would have been editing. Any objections to this revised and neutral text, which sounds rather axiomatic to me? The "problem in the first place" may have been intolerance as much as anything.--
Wetman 23:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
George Lakoff, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't (University of Chicago Press), finds that central to the conservative worldview is a metaphor of the state as a strict father, and that the "family values" that conservatives espouse are those of a strict father's household: self-reliance, rewards and punishments, responsibility, respect for authority. Conservatives under Ronald Reagan began to understand the deep connection between family and politics, while Liberals remained clueless about their own family metaphor, according to Lakoff, the "nurturant parent" model. Under Reagan, Lakoff says, conservatives drove the language of strict father morality into the media and the body politic. But Lakoff is reducing these familiar metaphors to rather local horizons, wouldn't you agree, SlimVirgin? Perhaps SlimVirgin can offer us a single "careful reference" of any expression of these ideas and add it to the article's "References". Or perhaps not... -- Wetman 04:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely with SlimVirgin's comments here (sorry to come in late; some of us have to sleep occasionally). I've rewritten the summary in order, first, to make it summarise, and secondly, to make it neutral and more scholarly (I hope). Any comments? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are two main sorts of approach referred to in the article: those people who describe, explain, or justify the state in terms of the family, and people who talk about the family in terms of the state. Of course there's some overlap between them, but shouldn't the distinction be made clearer in the structure of the article? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Within a few weeks, when Wikipedians will be deciding whether or not Mel Etitis's character will make him a suitable administrator, this Discussion page will be worth looking at. -- Wetman 19:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you used your energy making useful edits instead of snide (and bewilderingly irrelevant) comments, think how Wikipedia could be improved. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(The reader may want to check User contributions. I waste little time on Talk pages. -- Wetman 21:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Confucius predates Aristotle in using family as a model for the state. He believed the child should be subordinate to the parent, younger brother to the older, wife to husband, and subject to the sovereign who is to be regarded as the father of the nation. The state as the family writ large was the most harmonious, orderly, and natural form of government. This was later expanded to cover international relations(i.e. the emperor of China as the older brother of the king of Korea). Confucian family theory is still espoused in North Korea to justify their method of leadership succession.
Should this be included in the article?
It's shocking that this page has no reference to fascism. The family metaphor for the state is such a key part of fascism, *the* key part in some expressions (for example, japanese fascism has the "family-system principle" which is very simply the definition of this article; Bertrand de Jouvenel equates the "fascist man" with the "head of family man"; Wilhelm Reich calls the family the fundamental replicating unit of fascism in some sense) 00:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.166.178 ( talk)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Tudoreanu likes to do a lot of editing. He edits and edits and edits. But does he create? Does he reference? Does he quote?
Look at his contrib list. What does he know of the Classical World? Does he read Aristotle, Cicero or any Classical Scholar? None whatsoever. But he does feel himself qualified to edit things out he has no comphrension of.
Please Mr. Tudoreanu leave off the editing until you have read the material yourself and did some research on the subject. WHEELER 18:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia's naming conventions, I think the article's name should be changed to something like 'Family as a State paradigm'. Any opinions out there? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I don't care either way. I just chose the shortest thing I could think of. WHEELER 01:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, it's done. I think that I've changed all the internal links from other articles. Now to get on with improving the article. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It looks good. And since I see that you are a Latin speaker maybe there is a single Latin word for this or a Greek word for this we can use. But it looks good. Thanks. WHEELER 17:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have adapted WHEELER's text en bloc to add some weight to the jejune article Paternalism, which seemed to be sketching out a simple-minded context for abortion issues. I toned down WHEELER's characteristically emphatic tone and eliminated all claims that might be attacked as a POV that did not suit our prejudices. I think that when one googles "Family/State paradigm", comes up with no "hits" and attempts on that basis to efface the entry, perhaps there is more motivating force than immediately meets the eye. -- Wetman 21:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to transfer a comment from [Paternalism] to here:
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paternalism"
I don't think "Paternalism is a right word for this subject matter. I may have gotten the title wrong, i.e. "Family/State paradigm", but I don't think that "paternalism" is the right word for this. I am up for a better title. "Family state paradigm" has the meaning that "of the influence of family structure as a paradigm for state organization". Now what word that does encapsulate this meaning, I am all for. WHEELER 21:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"In hierarchal societies, one finds hierarchal families and hierarchal governments ("I order you to ..."). In consensus societies, one finds consensus families and consensus governments ("Hey, don't I get a vote on that?"). States and families are both governed according to cultural ideas about appropriate power relations and thus necessarily mirror each other in any given culture. Diversity of all kinds abounds (e.g. a soldier's family in a liberal democracy)." 4.250.138.88 23:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Editors . Censors delete. Was there truly nothing in the offered text that satisfied Mel Etitis' personal POV, which is apparently in full control here? How about the following: "States and families are both governed according to cultural norms of appropriate power relations and thus tend to mirror one another. In hierarchical societies hierarchic families are the norm; in consensual societies one tends to find consensual families, though diversity abounds." That would have been editing. Any objections to this revised and neutral text, which sounds rather axiomatic to me? The "problem in the first place" may have been intolerance as much as anything.--
Wetman 23:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
George Lakoff, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't (University of Chicago Press), finds that central to the conservative worldview is a metaphor of the state as a strict father, and that the "family values" that conservatives espouse are those of a strict father's household: self-reliance, rewards and punishments, responsibility, respect for authority. Conservatives under Ronald Reagan began to understand the deep connection between family and politics, while Liberals remained clueless about their own family metaphor, according to Lakoff, the "nurturant parent" model. Under Reagan, Lakoff says, conservatives drove the language of strict father morality into the media and the body politic. But Lakoff is reducing these familiar metaphors to rather local horizons, wouldn't you agree, SlimVirgin? Perhaps SlimVirgin can offer us a single "careful reference" of any expression of these ideas and add it to the article's "References". Or perhaps not... -- Wetman 04:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely with SlimVirgin's comments here (sorry to come in late; some of us have to sleep occasionally). I've rewritten the summary in order, first, to make it summarise, and secondly, to make it neutral and more scholarly (I hope). Any comments? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are two main sorts of approach referred to in the article: those people who describe, explain, or justify the state in terms of the family, and people who talk about the family in terms of the state. Of course there's some overlap between them, but shouldn't the distinction be made clearer in the structure of the article? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Within a few weeks, when Wikipedians will be deciding whether or not Mel Etitis's character will make him a suitable administrator, this Discussion page will be worth looking at. -- Wetman 19:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you used your energy making useful edits instead of snide (and bewilderingly irrelevant) comments, think how Wikipedia could be improved. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(The reader may want to check User contributions. I waste little time on Talk pages. -- Wetman 21:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Confucius predates Aristotle in using family as a model for the state. He believed the child should be subordinate to the parent, younger brother to the older, wife to husband, and subject to the sovereign who is to be regarded as the father of the nation. The state as the family writ large was the most harmonious, orderly, and natural form of government. This was later expanded to cover international relations(i.e. the emperor of China as the older brother of the king of Korea). Confucian family theory is still espoused in North Korea to justify their method of leadership succession.
Should this be included in the article?
It's shocking that this page has no reference to fascism. The family metaphor for the state is such a key part of fascism, *the* key part in some expressions (for example, japanese fascism has the "family-system principle" which is very simply the definition of this article; Bertrand de Jouvenel equates the "fascist man" with the "head of family man"; Wilhelm Reich calls the family the fundamental replicating unit of fascism in some sense) 00:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.166.178 ( talk)