Talk:Nanny state

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nanny state article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libertarianism Mid‑importance

	Libertarianism portal Nanny state is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origin of the term

Journalist Dorothy Thompson used the term in a column in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on June 6, 1952. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://archives.post-gazette.com/image/88670881/?terms=Dorothy%2BThompson%2Bnanny&match=2 Bridger73 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I haven't read the book that's cited to give the origin of the term, but I do remember from school quite clearly that the concept of a "nanny state" has its origins in a punch cartoon, which depicts a dubious John Bull unwillingly being pushed around in a pram at a breakneck speed by a domineering nanny. I can't find a link, but it dates from the late 19th century, and is in protest against the public health reforms. Perhaps it is not what lead to the popular use of the term, but maybe it is worth at least an honourable mention, as it shows the history of the public opinion on such matters? 143.210.24.240 (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article (http://ipa.org.au/news/2347/the-nanny-state-is-coming...for-your-democratic-soul), the first use of the term was in the Spectator magazine in 1965. "The term was coined in The Spectator in 1965 and clearly bears the marks of that publication and that era." 79.70.64.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

... a "conservative" term??? Seriously? Bias much? I'm killing that descriptor. A≠non-A (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot that lead paragraphs can only be edited by super-cheeses. Hey, what super-cheese is camping on this term? Fix that please. It's offensive. I guess I can't fix it myself but until it's fixed I'm adding this article to my burgeoning collection of evidence of Wikipedia's political and religious bias. A≠non-A (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Australia should be added

They have the world's biggest fucking porno filter in the world which doesn't work ( see Internet censorship in Australia ), have really bizzare child-car seat laws and other road laws in general ( The speed limit is WAY too small, for example ), they seemingly either ban or seemingly heavily censor videogames which would otherwise be classified as "18+" in other countries, and they fucking bombard you with these anti-smoking ads ( YES, WHERE NOT IDIOTS, WE DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD EVERY 10 MINUTES )... ...Surely this is more than enough to be considered "Nanny state. Reply if you agree. - Another n00b (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Australia is massive using the term now on everything but your rant isn't valid in some things, and its pretty part of our language now on all things law related thanks to Australian F1 Driver Mark Webber at the 2010 Melbourne GP with calling Australia the Bloody Nanny State after Lewis Hamilton got picked up for doing supposed burnouts in his hired car. 110.175.205.112 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have boldly cleaned up the article. For the introduction, I've referenced the OED definition. For the rest, I have removed all unreferenced statements (some of which have been tagged since 2009). I have also removed mentions of "uses of the term" that referenced sources which contained no mention of the term. Following these changes, I feel that the cleanup tags no longer apply -Kieran (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the article probably verges on violating WP:NOTDIC, although given the political nature and usage of the term, probably deserves an article just as much as truthiness does. -Kieran (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it looks much more encyclopedic now. Good job. Saruman IV (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary term?

Well, my comments in the above talk section and the fact that the tagger couldn't event be bothered to check or engage on the talk page notwithstanding, I think I will leave the tag up. Right now, the page does indeed appear to be somewhat of a dictionary entry. However, the only path I could see towards it becoming more encyclopaedic would be finding good sources discussing the ways in which the word is used.

The problem with the term is, as both dictionary definitions allude to, that its meaning is entirely subjective (note the inclusion of the terms "view" and "perceived"). As far as I can tell, all of the meanings which have been loaded onto it have their own dedicated, NPOV articles (for example corporate welfare, the welfare state and occupational safety and health). I do not see how it can ever form the basis for an NPOV article on political topics.

That said, we seem to have hung on to articles on similar subjective political epithets such as pinko, useful idiot and wingnut, so who knows... -Kieran (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Welfare State

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge with welfare state. It is possible for a country to have a welfare state without being so interventionist as to be a nanny state. Vorbee (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C-19

I believe it is warranted to have a section about the response to Covid-19, regardless of if or not response was proportionate or an excessive over reaction it does not change the observed reality of them.

Here is the description of Paternalism Paternalism is action that limits a person's or group's liberty or autonomy and is intended to promote their own good.[1] Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.[2] Paternalism, paternalistic and paternalist have all been used as a pejorative for example in the context of societal and/or political realms and references.[3]

[1] intended to promote their own good. the rhetoric of "If you gather in a large group its killing grandma"(Unless its a BLM rally) and "if it saves just one life"

[2] the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority. Take for example most debate between Pro-Establishment and Anti-establishment. Pro-Establishment arguments are largely appeal to authority though this is my anecdotal observation

[3]been used as a pejorative for example in the context of societal and/or political realms and references.

There has been some debate about why Libertarians and or conservatives often disagree with the mandates and restrictions and its not very complicated to explain their point of view

2 quotes from Thomas Jefferson summarize simply that freedom takes priority over Paternalism "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"

thus how we deal with it is more a Paternalism vs libertarian debate rather than a scientific debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.196 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the whole "Covid-19" in your title. The way it currently reads is as "Carbon-19" and is thus confusing. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]