Talk:Status quo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Status quo 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

It is requested that an image or photograph of Status quo be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

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.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Notes

Added the reference to voting systems Colignatus 15:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC) status quo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.57.5 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source / usage

When did the term come into common usage ? Is it really from "status quo ante bellum" or direct from the latin ? -- Beardo 09:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and statu quo

I know for certain that in Spain we have been told by the academics that we should use the form Statu Quo, the correct one instead of the one with "s". Since it is a latin term, shouldn't all tongues use the same term?? Carlos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.96.161 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term from Latin, but in English we've borrowed it as "status quo". (I think it's a fairly general rule that Latin nominals are borrowed into English in their nominative forms. The only exception I can think of offhand is "propaganda", which is in the feminine ablative.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statu quo or Status quo? I think the correct is the latin expression Statu quo (without "s"), besides of the new usage with "s". Maybe a good argument is that in English there isn't the word "quo", neither the word "statu". Why create it? Check other languages at Wikipedia... you will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.17.52 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. The original has statū because that is the correct form to use after the word ‘in’. The rest of the time it will commonly be in the nominative status. The plural, by the way, is statūs. — Chameleon 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical

I think the reference to High School Musical is irrelevant to the topic. The song itself adds no additional information to the article - and even if it did, the article doesn't touch on that point. 71.36.83.69 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman rule in Palestine

When did the term come into common usage ? Is it really from "status quo ante bellum" or direct from the latin ? -- Beardo 09:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC) I have read that during the Ottoman rule in Palestine (1516 - 1917ish) they attempted to settle disputing religious claims to holy sites between the various Christian denominations by drawing up a rights of possession for nine of these sites. This ruling was known as the "Status Quo" and remains applicable today. mostlyblack[reply]

Sections?

This article has three sections. More would be preposterous, yet it has a {{sections}} tag. I don't follow why. The tag was placed previously, and I removed it, stating my reason. It was replaced without discussion. Please discuss here before replacing the tag again, per WP:BRD. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

Hmmm... remind me to change the name of that section... Quotation sections tend to be problematic -- many are just a trivia list under another name. I can see the relevance of the two quotations I left standing, but I don't see where "Dr. Horrible's" quotation is any more interesting than any other quotation from a random work of fiction. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the "Dr. Horrible's" quotation - after visiting just the main page of the website the quote is referenced from, I would say the inclusion of this particular quotation seems more like a method of advertising than anything else. If "Dr. Horrible" will a more well-known "personality", there might be an argument for leaving it in (perhaps), but as is, I am going to remove it. Dan Aquinas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

First recorded use in English

Erm, if that isn't a contradiction...

But the Oxford English Dictionary cites the use of the phrase "status quo" was used decades before the phrase "status quo ante bellum" in English at leastCannonmc (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge.

I propose to merge Status quo ante bellum into this article. They are both relatively short articles on topics relating to the derivation of the same Latin phrase. bd2412 T 14:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are significant differences in the application and understanding of the two terms, which makes the two articles largely distinct. One term may be linguistically derivative of the other, but their applications and current understandings are independently used. A ´prince´ and ´princess´ share a similar connection of one word being derivative, but they both stand as independent concepts. So, I would reconsider merging the articles. Tshiatji (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casus belli

What has Casus belli got to do with this article? Delete from See also? Dpleibovitz (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. Sjö (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Status quo not used as a word for expectation?

for me it is a fancy way to say "I expect ____"<p>I am confused<br> ??????</p> draw_ = function() {ellipse(mouseX, mouseY, 100, 100);}--Gagidoo (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard it used that way. It's not impossible that it sometimes is used to be about expectations, but it would take a reliable source to add that meaning, such as a dictonary.Sjö (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]