Talk:Nanny state

Discussion

202.156.2.210 replaced the paragraph on Singapore with the following. I don't know enough about Malaysian politics to know if this has any merit, but it needs a bit of a copyedit if someone wants to put it back (wikification would be nice too). I do know enough about Singapore to know that that paragraph should not be removed without some discussion here first, if at all. - RedWordSmith 04:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Malaysia has a very strong reputation of being a crazed nanny state in which e.g the depiction of romantic kissing is illegal in films shown there.More than half the films from U.S don't make it there and the rest that manages to be paseed are cut up so badly you barely understand what is going on.Some examples of films being banned are Daredevil(2003).

Whilst the term nanny state is commonly used in Irish politics the state itself is far from been a nanny state. It has few of the characteristics, apart from the welfare state system which shares much in common with times past, viz comprehensive. Djegan 21:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Doug asks: Who is "Ashley" and why is she/he instructing us to watch out for editing problems when she/he cannot write a coherent sentence? The article appears reasonable to me, and I heartily approve of the removal of the Singapore paragraph. Here is my best guess about Ashley: One of the two major parties in America is in favor of America becoming a nanny state. I think Ashley is a member of this party, but finds it distressing to have her agenda discribed using this terminology; i.e. "nanny". So, instead of admitting to reality, she warns the rest of us to watch out for those extremists on the other side. [Note: Ashley's comment was removed from this site shortly after my comment appeared. Thank you. Note #2: This article really is very kind to the various parties and gives fair weight to all sides. IMHO.]

"Fascist" Lee Kwan Yew

Very un-NPOV and should be removed. I will accept "Authoritarian" Kransky 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Will you now.... 137.222.229.74 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the term

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)

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).

NPOV

Neutrality-nomination because the tone is very biased:

Another class of nanny state laws originate with the European Commission, who have banned mercury in barometers as of June 2007. The decision has destroyed the livelihoods of skilled workers. A previous attempt by the same body to ban the use of Imperial measures like pounds and ounces in 1993, has now been quietly dropped, and British citizens and traders are, and will be in the foreseeable future, allowed to use them freely alongside metric measures like kilogrammes.

Evilteuf 12:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks bogus. I'm just taking it out. WLU 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Check your facts first before removing text. The recent decision by the EC to ban liquid mercury has been widely criticised in the UK. Some reporters have called it the activity of the "nanny state". I will revert unless you can disprove the facts. Peterlewis 21:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's commentary by newspapers, it should be labelled as such; the tone of the section is biased towards Euroskepticism. If you want to report the facts on it, that's one thing, but I think outright calling it nanny-statism as opposed to saying that some people call it that displays bias. Evilteuf 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if the statement is challenged, it should be sourced. Statement has been challenged, if you wish it to stay, it'd be a good idea to provide said sources. WLU 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some further replies to Peterlewis:

1. If an item is challenged for factuality, it should be cited. Further, it would be virtually impossible to disprove that a reporter never called the banning of mercury nanny-statism. I think proof of a negative is impossible, but at any rate it's more work than I have time for. Please provide a relevant citation for the section to remain in. It is not up to other editors to disprove a point like this, the provider should track it down. But I just found something, so I'll be adding the reference soon.
2. The tone should be re-written, specifically the line the decision has destroyed the livelihoods of skilled workers. along with has now been quietly dropped. It sounds very strongly like a POV statement, which wikipedia prohibits. That's apparently been addressed, so this point is moo.
3. The entire section on the metric versus imperial measures doesn't really seem relevant, and I've removed it. I don't really see the purpose of the section, it's a fairly weak example of a nanny state as far as I can see, and doesn't really add much to the page.

WLU 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unclear statement

Could someone clarify this statement? "...it is most appropriately defined as those instances when liberals and other leftists trade votes for womb-to-tomb government give-aways from those who can to those who won't." 07:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This article shouldn't exist

The English newspaper The Daily Mail often uses the phrase "nanny state". Therefore Nanny State is an illegitimate term. Studies have shown that The Daily Mail is the only paper in the history of journalism to have ever engaged in sensationalism, or had readers who were unintelligent. Therefore, if they say anything, it is automatically untrue and the opposite of what they say is true. Cmon guys, let's stop perpetuating right wing propaganda. We cant let some kind of straw man argument about "neutrality" get in the way of Wikipedia singlehandedly saving the world from the evils of capitalism and curing hunger, disease and all other social ills in one fell swoop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonJewart (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm is best done with a light touch. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Suitability of the UK as an example

Is the UK really a good example here? More so than other Western Countries?

If it is then we need to include references to international studies. I'm sure there are some publications. What we have at the moment is several links which don't follow or make sense in sucession.

The Ofcom reference is strange, as other countries also have regulation of television programs to ensure that unsuitable material isn't shown. I suggest what the editor means is that the balance isn't right. Similarly one link to a BBC article is anecdotal evidence but could do with a wider perspective.

I might try and redraft it if I get chance in the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.68.140 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ranges too far and wide

'nanny state' for most people means excessive meddling by the state and law enforcement in areas many people consider matters of personal responsibility. As noted in the article, the classic example is probably motorcycle helmet laws. I also think the incessant announcements on board trains to keep your hands away from the doors as you might get a finger caught, and so on, are also good examples of the same basic meaning. I don't think most people think the term has anything to do with economic protectionism, or with Noam Chomsky. Perhaps he's using the term in a deliberately cognitively dissonant manner?Haberstr (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

this article is a mess. i think it should focus on the origins and historical usage of the phrase instead of veering into polemic and political theoryBenvenuto (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Agreed Australia is massive using the term now on everything and its pretty part of our language now on all things law related thanks to Australian F1 Driver Mark Webber at the 2011 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)

Would Nanny state count as a neologism?

I'm still not sure if or how this would apply. Saruman IV (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nanny state is a common enough term and used widely enough to not be classed as a neologism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED has an entry on it, but notes that it is originally and chiefly used in British English. Merriam-Webster does not, so I guess it could be argued that it is a neologism in American English? -Kieran (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And I mean that for factual purposes within the article. Its presence in the OED, and the 47-year vintage, is clear evidence that WP:NEO does not apply. -Kieran (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Merge with Welfare State

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