Talk:Pater familias

message: This page redirects from 'paterfamilias', but 'paterfamilias' is also a legitimate English word with specific meanings.  This should be indicated or cited somwhere.  The definitions given by Mirriam-Webster are: " : the male head of a household 2 : the father of a family 3 : a man who originates or is a leading figure in something (as a movement, discipline, or enterprise)"  Janopus (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! The Ogre (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from 'paterfamilias' 

message: I think the changes I made turned the article into a much more accurate, and significantly more balanced article. Wikipedia shouldn't give people information that would lead to a failing grade on a test, and the sources I gave are university grade and above, and are regularly assigned when studying Roman Society.
So if no objections are made I will restore the edit, since it could be undone, and wikipedia shouldn't give an inacurate image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 
:As I wrote on your talk page, the text was copyright and had to be removed. And you can't just paraphrase either, see WP:PARAPHRASE. Large chunks of copied text rarely improve an article in any case. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment I'm concerned only with copyright violations. I've got the ability and responsibility to prevent those, but so long as there are no copyright violations anything else is probably going to be editorial decisions - in other words, you write using your own language and citing reliable sources (you do need to look at WP:CITE to learn what's expected), and then see what other editors (if any) think about your edits. And please don't forget to sign your name with 4 tildes (~). Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why revert? 

message: The article is not salvageable in current format. It needs a historical approach, and this requires complete re-organisation and re-writing. Has to be done. Will do. Haploidavey (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: Editors keep trying to exclude the form paterfamilias. It really can be found written as a single word. Examples of RS include: Richard P. Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge University Press, 1994); and Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Family (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). And innumerable others. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that citing critical editions in which paterfamilias is written would not be original research: textual critics' usage of the form is scholarship in itself and perhaps even more significant than the fact that we rank-and-file classicists use the compound.  davidiad.: 00:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paterfamilias 

message: I was looking for an article about the Roman family or Roman household and didn't find those at the expected locations, so I checked this article looking for a link. Then I found out that this article actually outlines the whole of the Roman household. Would it be an idea to re-purpose this article by renaming it and editing the current lead into a section? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename and broaden scope? 

message: Do we have examples of a plural form in Latin literature? Since any one familia could have only one paterfamilias at a time, I would have thought that a genitive plural (familiom, familiasom, or even familiarum) would be more correct that patres familias. Or did the writers only ever talk about the succession of patresfamilias in a single family? Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural