Talk:Nanny state

Journalist Dorothy Thompson used the term in a column in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on June 6, 1952. ^[1] 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)

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).

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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

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)