Talk:Personal life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Personal life/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search


"Life's progression from birth to death is not a mere succession of moments." That's arguable and not encyclopedic. Very POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. It doesn't seem at all necessary. Deleted that sentence. Fraser J Allison (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gender aspects[edit]

The following aspects are missing (cf. my contribution 19. March and its revert): "Personal life is the course of an individual human's life in a special society and gender system, especially when viewed as the sum of personal available societal chances and choices contributing to one's personal identity and subjective realisation of a gender role. It is a common notion in modern existence – although more so in more prosperous parts of the world, such as Western Europe and North America, where there are both continuated gender asymmetric ascription of everyday caring work burdens (household chore), economically located in "private" life, which in androcentric perspective is assumed as free of work, and service industries designed to help people improve their personal lives via work-life balance, day care and other care services, domestic technology, counselling or life coaching.

In the past, before modern technology largely alleviated the problem of economic scarcity, most people, women and men, are assumed spending a large portion of their time simply attempting to stay alive. Survival skills were necessary for the sake of both self, family and community; food needed to be harvested and shelters needed to be maintained. There was little privacy in a community, and people were identified by their social role. Unpaid "house"-work, Jobs and resulting double burden were assigned out of necessity rather than personal choice."

Michael Hardy is arguing, that this his emphasis on gender should not be made a part of the definition of "personal life". According to him, personal life has to be seen as an androcentric construction (cf. )--Annamarie Ursula 12:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Folks, I think this ought to refer to the 'everyday life' philosophical approach, and should be renamed "Everyday Life." What do you think? --Dylanfly 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


This article is basically all original research that is presented as fact; and moreover seems to be original research by armchair sociologists blinded by their own inexperience and pompous theorizing. The direct allegation that people in poor countries can't afford the "luxury" of personal space is a truly remarkable manifestation of patronizing ignorance.

If this article is to continue to exist, it should show clearly that these "facts" are theories, and should attribute all of these assertions to the notable scholars from which they emanate. However, if presenting certain theories as if they were absolute truths is the goal of this article- as it seems to be- it doesn't merit space on wikipedia. --JrFace (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion is a good option, with possible explinations of the term on this page. For a lot of people (well, the people I know anyway) the common usage of 'personal life' = love life. -- (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the Everyday Life page should be resurrected?Harrypotter (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I also vote for deletion. There is nothing substantive to the article at all Erickroh (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Nuke it. Pointless waffle, like a bad school essay. Have raised at [1] (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Good Faith edits[edit]

Rather than acceding to calls for deletion, it might be more constructive to rewrite the article so that it meets the objections of the interested parties.

In response to those who object to article, with claims of Original Research, it is fairly clear that one's Personal life is an aspect of one's Personhood. The reasoning is that if one (a person) is alive, then one may speak of one's life, and if one can claim personhood (which may be considered a basic right for a sentient being) then it may be possible to speak that one's personal life. Now if one has died, then one might still speak of that person's life, if they knew it, and if one has yet to be born, then one might still speak of the lives of those who will yet live. These basic ideas ought be found in some source so that we might write of them in the encyclopedia. But in a sense they are logical and obvious. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In defense of the term "daily life"[edit]

I'm not sure I agree with redirecting "daily life" to "personal life." There are endless scholarly books with such titles as The Daily Life of the Ancient Romans or Daily Life in Medieval France; "daily life" is a recognizable field of scholarly inquiry, and I'm not sure you find "personal life" used in the same way. Scholars are probably more inclined to say "private life" when they mean "personal life," distinguishing between "public life." I think you could easily (and probably should) have an article on "daily life" as a topic of scholarship that gained in popularity throughout the 20th century. This is not the same as "personal life," which I'm not sure I'd know how to delineate as a topic for an encyclopedia article. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Core topic candidate?[edit]

I see that the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team has included Personal life as one of their Eight Elite (or core) topics. But the article itself leaves much to be desired and is currently only rated as start class. Perhaps part of the problem is that it is related to sociology and that social sciences is also among the Eight Elite while Everyday life - which redirects here - is a second level topic in Version 1.0.

At a time when Jimmy Wales is encouraging new strategic objectives, may I suggest that if this article is to be one of the Eight Elite for Version 1-0, then it should include, at the very least, references to clothing, education, food and popular culture which are all second-level priorities. Note that these four already have quality ratings of B or C and could therefore help in editing this article up to a higher quality standard.

I also wonder whether personal life should not contain sections covering topics such as personal identity, personal health, personal finances, etc., etc. The difficulty here is to decide how far the "personal" aspect merits special attention.

Whatever the case, the article as it stands deserves priority attention. In the next few days, I will see what I can do to improve it. I hope others will contribute.Ipigott (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've spent quite a bit of time and effort on this over the past few days. I have tried to expand it principally as an introduction to all the related topics. I am not sure this is the right way to go but at least it provides a basis for others to contribute.

I am not too happy about combining the daily life article with this one on personal life. In my opinion, there are important differences between the two which should be maintained. Daily life is far more in line with the German Alltag which appears rather different to personal life. Any comments on this??? - Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time figuring out what this article is supposed to be about. It seems to be a series of observations on pretty much any topic to do with human existence that came into the authors' heads. If "personal life" is supposed to exclude the parts of one's life spent at work (which in some places seems to be the intention, but in other places is not so clear) then I don't see why "daily life" or "everyday life" should redirect here. Both of those things, to me, include time spent at work. (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC).


Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not up to Wikipedia's standards[edit]

This article is not up to Wikipedia's standards, in terms of 1) the quality of the writing, 2) the quality of the content, and 3) citation. I think it needs to be re-written. (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. 6 years on and the article lacks substance. I think its the nature of the topic. Concrete facts remain elusive. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)