Home Living Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles 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.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Architecture Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lemme put it this way - is a hime somewhere you Live, or somewhere you stay?. You can only choose one or the other. below with your signature and on 25/12/2007 I'll check up the votes and see which wins! --Napster964 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't go so well. maybe calling people morons can put them off 144.139.121.190 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Someone write a better article fro home this one sucks. -unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.108.13 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (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]

Two things can both influence each other. That is not necessarily a contradiction. In fact, two people can influence each other.  :-) CocoaZen (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It doesn't have to be serious. WinterSpw (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2008 (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]

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. unsigned comment

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]

Appreciate the various threads of conversation over this term and how to explain it- am working on a project that tackles a very similar problem. Any image or prose contributions to what home means to you as a person living in the united states are sought, as well as any suggestions of other resources with the same theme. www.thehomelandsproject.com many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homelands (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it. Garbagecycle (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so this article is an untagged stub which would usually be a problem in itself but i think i have just enough material to bring it up to size, being a major and broad concept, "Home" warrants a full article. Randy6767 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be longer. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much longer Saturdayseven (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the importance rating on the WikiProject Home Living banner be top-importance rather than high-importance? It's the most vital article in the project. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Saturdayseven (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. It is about houses. Sipslice11 (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People who work on Wikipedia, should mention the famously used expression "Home Is Where The Heart Is",

Or you should create a section that has expressions that have been mentioned about a home to expand or improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.135.44 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would need citations to include that. Saturdayseven (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very dumb! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.223.41 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations to a couple of these phrases that appear in the lead. -—Kvng 22:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to a bias, so I'll let others decide. I think the Home Wikia would be a good external link for this page to include. What do you think? -- CocoaZen (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no External links section in the article and this is not a compelling enough reference to start one. -—Kvng 22:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should expand this. --108.35.232.7 (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]