Wikipedia redefines single parent households as 'nuclear families'!

Started by Tigerman, Feb 01, 2009, 07:17 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Tigerman

wikipedia Nuclear Family
Quote
Single-parent households are now considered "nuclear families" as of August 2008.[citation needed]

-----------------------------
You will note on the page that there is no explanation for this re-classification. This seems to me to be yet another example of radical feminist activism at work to undermine speech and thought on this important issue. I also looked into the discussion tab of the wiki and here again I found no discussion at all to even justify this important inclusion.
When discussing the societal impact of different family structures we need to have clearly understood terms of reference.Since traditional marriage and the nuclear family do just about represent the most successful and PROVEN form of family structure then it would certainly suit a radical feminist agenda if it could hijack the term to include much more sub optimal structures within it's umbrella (i.e. single parent families). At the very least this tactic could be used to bog down meaningful discussion of family structure in semantics - a tactic far from unknown to feminists whenever they know they are on shaky ground.
I don't know if this attempt undermine the definition of nuclear family is being used elsewhere - I suspect it is. This is where we need activists of special skills because I for one do not have a clue how Wiki entries are made nor influenced so this is a call for activism for those who do.

neoteny


This is where we need activists of special skills because I for one do not have a clue how Wiki entries are made nor influenced so this is a call for activism for those who do.


It is very simple; apart from some special cases, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. OTOH anyone can edit it back, too... and there's no point to engage in an editing war. The marking "citation needed" is plenty enough; lacking said citation, every thinking person knows that it is just so much hot air.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Tigerman



This is where we need activists of special skills because I for one do not have a clue how Wiki entries are made nor influenced so this is a call for activism for those who do.


It is very simple; apart from some special cases, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. OTOH anyone can edit it back, too... and there's no point to engage in an editing war. The marking "citation needed" is plenty enough; lacking said citation, every thinking person knows that it is just so much hot air.



Yes I see your point (re not taking entries with 'citation needed' very seriously) - the worry is of course that there may well be moves to include this new definition at levels of statistic gathering and\or recording. We need to keep a watch on this I think.
For what it is worth I have now created an account with Wiki and removed the line on the grounds there is no supporting cite and that it contradicted prior definitions of the term.
How long my edit will stick of course remains to be seen!  :sunny:

Men's Rights Activist

Nuclear Family - Nuclear Catastrophe!   :sad5:
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

Tigerman


Nuclear Family - Nuclear Catastrophe!   :sad5:


No only it's undermining and partial destruction has been a catastrophe.

benton



This is where we need activists of special skills because I for one do not have a clue how Wiki entries are made nor influenced so this is a call for activism for those who do.


It is very simple; apart from some special cases, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. OTOH anyone can edit it back, too... and there's no point to engage in an editing war. The marking "citation needed" is plenty enough; lacking said citation, every thinking person knows that it is just so much hot air.



Sadly, there are not a lot of thinking people today.  I do think it is interesting that people do not view this as cause for concern.  Reminds me of feminism in the early 1900s and then again in the 1960s and that anyone with common sense would see through the nonsense, the lies, but that did not happen.

Citations are not needed, studies are not needed, all that is really needed is emotions.


Use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.

SIAM

Also: "children don't need fathers" being another "norm".  And schizophrenically, they will blame fathers when their kids turn out bad ("what can we do when the father ran off? We needed a father figure but there wasn't one"). 

These distortions of reality are just manifestations of selfishness.  The authors of such lies simply want to feel good about their decisions.  Just like a leader who goes to war - they rhetorically list their reasons even years after the event.  It's like they're trying to convince themselves, not who they are speaking to.  And of course, the reasons are always wholesome and self-sacrificing.  Never self-serving.  Oh no.  Better to look in a distorting mirror if a regular one shows how ugly you are.   

novaseeker

That reference was edited out yesterday as conflicting with the accepted definition of the term "nuclear family".

Not everyone is so stupid, apparently.

Go Up