Talk:think of the children

Added quotations

Added sourced quotations. Added six (6) to the main page at think of the children, and a bunch more, with a timeline to newly created Citations:think of the children. -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

My thanks to Equinox for creating the page in the first place. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

POS

I think this should be classified as a verb because the inflected forms are also used. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's more an interjection than a verb, as originally noted by Equinox at here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It’s hard to distinguish interjections from verbs that are most often used in the imperative. But thinking of the children and thought of the children exist with this meaning, so I think it should be listed as a verb because interjections don’t inflect. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear thoughts from Equinox on this, but if those other forms exist perhaps you could help out and create them with some sourced quotes? :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously a VP, and we've already got some entries that say "imperative only" or "mostly imperative", so I think that is the way to go. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Equinox, so how to modify the page? Or leave it as is? What do you think, what's best? -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources, please?

Please, cite sources for new additions of definitions, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No. You have to request them if you think a sense doesn’t exist. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, add sources for the unsourced definition that has zero sources for it. -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to imply that the literal sense "think" + "of" + "the" + "children" is likely not to be attestable. Here are some cites to get you started: [1], [2], [3]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those citation suggestions. Please, add them to the page as specific citations. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WOTD

This should have been Word of the Day yesterday, to commemorate the anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Already been WOTD, can't do it again. -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why? WOTDs are usually recycled. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it's the most appropriate term to commemorate that anniversary anyways. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed order

I've fixed the order for usage more discussed in scholarly sources. The usage denoting moral panic is more prominent in citations over time. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Logical fallacy category

Why was this category removed? I will add it back unless explained. It is clearly a form of w:Logical fallacy. -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the category Category:en:Logical fallacies should be added only to entries for English names of logical fallacies and to the entry logical fallacy itself. As far as I can tell, every page currently in the category fits this description. On the other hand, think of the children is not the name of a logical fallacy (or if it is, we are missing that sense). If you disagree and think that the category should additionally be used for instances of fallacies or other fallacy-related entries, that can be discussed, hopefully with input from other editors. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see "Think of the Children!": An Ethics Fallacy. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. If we can find three citations meeting WT:CFI for think of the children used as the name of a logical fallacy, then I think the category would be appropriate. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty in academic scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles and published books. There are a few on the Citations page, I will add more. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We now have two cites, that back up w:Logical fallacy, plus this one, above. I've been able to access it in the past, just can't view the actual passage now at this specific point in time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe my previous comment was unclear. I think the category should only be included if we add a noun sense with a definition like "A logical fallacy appealing to the welfare of children." The fact that the phrase is sometimes used in contexts relating to fallacies is not enough. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Passage from cite:

We now have three (3) sources that acknowledge that use of this is a w:Logical fallacy. -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read my comments more carefully. I think the category should only be included if we add a noun sense saying that "think of the children" is the name of a logical fallacy. The fact that people sometimes use the phrase when they are committing a fallacy or discussing fallacies is not enough. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you read the scholarly academic peer-reviewed sources cited, you'll hopefully agree with me and see that it is itself a logical fallacy. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you're used to Wikipedia, where the opinions of reliable sources are very important. Here on Wiktionary, they are much less important—we just go by usage. So I'll say it again: if the phrase "think of the children" is used as the name of a logical fallacy, then we should add a noun sense and include the category. Otherwise, we shouldn't. I believe you that people who use this phrase are often either committing or discussing a logical fallacy, but I don't see why that's lexicographically relevant. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The category is "logical fallacies" (a topic), not "names of logical fallacies", so I would think this could stay there. I am pretty sure we have similar cases, maybe e.g. "fly"-verb in a category about birds. (Can't think of a real example as I rarely use categories.) Equinox ◑ 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, agree with Equinox (talk • contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I notice that Category:en:Birds doesn't contain fly, nor does it contain any words that aren't directly tied to birds. Maybe this is just a philosophical difference about how to use categories. But anyway, if you both think the category is appropriate, I'll stop arguing. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:en:Society contains terms that are not societies, but only relate to societies. That's similar. Equinox ◑ 18:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Equinox (talk • contribs), and agreed, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)