Should that link be there? It almost seems like commercial.

What other relevant things are there to a home? --unsigned

Similarly, what else can be added to home? Ideas? Gflores ^Talk 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's a pretty weak article at present. There is a list of quotations which is not really informative and is necessarily arbitrary, because there are so many potential quotes which have the word "home" in them. Other than that, it's really just a dictionary definition, and most dictionaries do a better job of it, giving a wider range of meanings, for example. I was trying to think of how to improve it and wondered what someone would hope to find if they looked up "home" in an encyclopedia, but I couldn't really think of an occasion where they would want to! So, to answer the question, some ideas: a more complete dictionary definition with all the shades of meaning of home; or give up and relegate the article to Wictionary; or a more serious psychological/sociological/anthropological discussion about the concept of home; or describe Home in literature, poetry and song (which might sort out the quotes a bit, as examples). Not much help I'm afraid! Bluewave 17:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the article somewhat, not adding much information but taking out some irrelevant things like the off-topic South Park bit and making the article look nicer overall. Also added picture. --Ben Tibbetts 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe add that home is a place to sleep, rest and eat?
• Maybe add that home is not only "where a person lives" but where many persons a family can live?
• Would be good with a better picture (in PNG format), that is nicer and has windows, etc...

The microsoft paint picture makes it look like an Uncyclopedia entry to me.--IMFromKathlene 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is self-contradictory: it says that the state of the home influences the behavior of the people in it and then says that the character of the people in the home influences the state of the home. Does the home influence its inhabitants or vice versa? Is there some sort of source for this? Theshibboleth 08:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a home influences its inhabitants while the inhabitants can modify the home as they see fit. Why must it be either/or? And no, I couldn't find a source for any of that stuff, but I would think at the least that it makes sense. Maybe I'll expand the psychology section with references if I have time... I'll put this on that pesky to-do list. Ben Tibbetts 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: While it is not a citing for the idea itself, adding an implied reference to Patch Adams at least verifies the claim as being something other than original research. Now comes the question of whether it is POV or an accepted theory... I will look into this. Ben Tibbetts 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the deletion of the image - it lacks seriousness. --Vince 07:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a widely perceived idea that the word ‘home’ is always attached to the nice and safe things in ones life - of security, happiness and family orientation. However this may not always be the case. A woman whose partner is constantly beating her, a child who is being abused,a male who is having major marital problems may be fearful to go home and not subscribe to the safe and secure theory. Home can be a prison that people find themselves trapped in with no obvious way of escape except . . . homelessness. To develope this theory is this where the home influences the person? Does a child who is brought up under the abuse banner go on to use this on his or her children? Does a woman who suffers from domestic violence encourage her daughters to put up and shut up?

this page is relatively as saccharine as dorothy in the wizard of oz. it would greatly benefit from a more anthropological and historical analysis of the term (etymology) and concept especially as it relates in the creation of places, nations, etc. structuralist (Levi-Strauss) and post-structuralist (Kristeva, Lyotard, Deleuze) thoughts must enter.

Yes, this page needs a lot of work. Care to improve it? Go right ahead. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 22:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can we block this user? in his short life time, he's become such a gigantic asshole that i feel his wikipedia editing privlidges should be revoked. just read his bio- he's an arrogant ass!

Thank you for your frank appraisal of my self. I will try to improve myself. However, please try to cool down, and return after the block as a more mature person. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 08:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it sort of awkward that Wikipedia has separate articles for House and Home. Should we merge this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HighInAZ (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think most people consider them to be two different things. A house is just a building. A home has many emotional concepts surrounding what it means to have one. --Geniac 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRT use of 'home' by real-estate agents instead of 'house' - this is an empirical observation combined with a logical statement, it is not original research.Eyedubya 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one sentence in that portion that I really have a problem with, and that's

Clearly this is a marketing ploy, since a house that is for sale is either someone else's home (the vendor's or its sitting tenant's) or no-one's home, but not yet the home of a prospective purchaser.

Yes, it is an observation combined with a logical statement - but it's your observation and your logic, and while I agree with it completely, to me it is the very definition of original research.

As another example: Newton sat under an apple tree and saw that the apple fell towards the earth. He observed that the apple fell towards the center of the earth and from that proceeded to logically come up with a description of gravity. Had Wikipedia been around then, if he had come to Wikipedia and said "The apple falls. Clearly this is because of gravity." It would have been Original research. If, however, you can find something in a magazine, newspaper, book, or what-have-you that says that this is clearly a marketing ploy then you can quote that publication and source it and this article will be 1000x stronger. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]