Talk:Think of the children/Archive 2

Logic Section (again)
After review of the single source offered I have deleted the "Logical Fallacy" section. Most of its brief content seemed to be OR (no citation). The source supporting the contention that appeal to emotions is a "logical fallacy" is a classroom textbook for debaters, not a work by logicians. "Appeal to emotion" is included in a long list of so-called logical fallacies, many of which simply aren't. The claim requires a reliable source - which will be hard to find, as a debating trick is not necessarily a logical fallacy.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * How is appealing to someone's emotions instead of presenting actual evidence a logical argument? "For the children" isn't necessarily a logical fallacy, but I'd argue that an appeal to emotion (at least sometimes) is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.76.162 (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted reference to Proclamation of the Irish Republic
The only source cited for this paragraph (McVeigh) is an article on the general topic of sectarianism in Irish politics. Although the title of the article - "Cherishing the children of the nation unequally" - refers to a statement in the Proclamation, the article itself is not about children, let alone about "for the children" type rhetoric. That the statement in the Proclamation is an example of "for the children" rhetoric is an original conclusion drawn by whoever included it here, and the further claim that it is often cited in discussions of childrens' rights had no supporting citation.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Examples (again)
Most of these are inappropriate. Per the discussion above, it's by no means clear in most cases, from the quotation alone, whether these are examples of "for the children" rhetoric, or just quotes which happen to include that (or a similar phrase). Where there is interpretation, it is OR. What is needed (if this section is needed at all) is examples which reliable, citable sources have identified as examples of this rhetoric. I am removing the most egregious entries. To be relevant, the example has to be a purely rhetorical use of the phrase (a statement that a new school is being opened "for our children" would not, for example, qualify). The assumption that the use is purely rhetorical in most of these cases is OR unless it can be supported.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * You're right, the examples are original research for the reasons you mentioned. Removed. They should not be re-added without support of reliable sources directly connecting them to the topic.  There seem to be no solid reliable sources for this topic at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011". Does that count? 75.118.51.238 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened to this article?
This article was very important, what happened to it? Over the course of 4 months, some people decided to delete 90% of its content! It wasn't non-neutral POV! At least, it was as neutral POV as many religion articles. Sure, there may have been some uncited sentences, but the proper response is not to delete the entire sections! Yes, some stuff deserved to be cut out, but now the article is only half-of-half-of-half-of- what it was before.Ninjagecko (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * KD Tries Again and Jack-A-Roe implemented a major rewrite last month. For their rationale, see the discussion directly above this one. — Satori Son 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. To be clear though, the information was not removed for neutrality issues, the problem was that the content did not comply with the core policies of no original research and verifiability.  Much of the information had no sources at all, and those few sources that were used were either non-reliable or did not verify as supporting the text in the way they were used.
 * There's another source that's still there that should probably also be removed, the Kantor article in USA Today. For one thing,  that article is an opinion piece about internet censorship, not the topic of this article, and mentions the phrase only once in passing.  The author is a software engineer who is not qualified as a source for an article on rhetoric or politics anyway.  Higher quality sources directly addressing the topic are needed if this article is to develop.
 * It's possible that this topic could be developed into a well-sourced article, but the references will have to be better than auntdeedee's blog on a free wordpress blog host (as removed just prior to posting this comment). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not write any of the article before it was gutted. But in my humble opinion, you both are completely missing the point of the article. The title is about *politics* -- "For the children (politics)". I notice phrases in your discussion like "it is mentioned in passing" or "the cited article is not about children's rights" or "this is not an example of rhetoric". I strongly believe this causing confusion and making you falsely believe there is OR going on. Firstly, rhetorical use is only a subset of the more general political usage (as indicated by the title), and thus the articles do not have to be about rhetoric, or even contain rhetoric. Secondly, "For the Children" does not need to strongly analyze children's rights; the entire point seems to be that children's rights are being used as a moral hammer through which to plow through either an logically unrelated argument, or as a drive-by justification that does not go into depth. Also the fact that a software engineer is not qualified by virtue of his job is absolutely preposterous; internet and computer censorship is one of the most common areas that "For the children" is applied to; moreover, your claim that the article only mentions 'children' once is unfortunately false; it is obvious from the title and the myriad occurrences of the word 'kid' and 'kids' that it is very much about the effect of a For-The-Children policy (which is even cited therein).Ninjagecko (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact 'politics' is a bad word to describe it... it's more like "For the Children (excuse / rationalization / reason(ing))"Ninjagecko (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasoning seems rather weak, and the revision has introduced some glaring flaws. For example, the introduction now has cites which aren't even alluded to in the article; e.g., the cite for its being "a political tool" is Michelle Obama's deflection of a question about her husband via use of appeal to children's interests.  The cite belongs in the article, but only if the example's there too; the First Lady didn't say that children's interests were used for politics, so it really doesn't fit with the introduction text.  I'm for reinstating the example, along with all others that have reliable sources and are relevant.  But let's at least work not to degrade the article in attempting to both improve it and make everyone happy by leaving in all citations, even when they no longer fit the text. Calbaer (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow
Wow, did I stumble into Conservopedia? This is an actual article? Obviously the main thing about children's interests, and citing or claiming children's interests, is for stuff that, you know, helps kids.

We could start by rewriting the lede to be actually accurate:
 * The interests of children is a presumed social benefit commonly cited in political and social advocacy for initiatives such as:
 * Increased funding for public education
 * Better nutrition during the years of physical development
 * Ant-bullying initiatives
 * Stringent safety standards for products used by children
 * Yadda yadda

I recognize through long experience here that many Conservo... er, Wikipedia editors consider advocacy for stuff like that to be loathsome or laughable, but are our articles really allowed to be so nakedly biased, and actually 180 degrees removed from the facts of the matter?

I look forward to the the work of the editors of this article on other articles such as Interests of the disabled, Minority-group rights, Worker's rights, Advocacy for the poor and so forth, where these too can be described as inherently the province of cynical and hypocritical manipulators.

Just... wow. Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is talking about the use of the phrase as a rhetorical device in order to gain support for something (e.g. legislation) which could provide a benefit for children but has not been "proven" to do so. For example, when trying to pass internet censorship laws in Germany, supporters of said laws would often respond to criticism regarding their effectiveness at protecting children by acting (or being) outraged at the sceptics' apparent lack of concern for Children's interests - the "fallacy" being that whether the laws would benefit children or not is precisely what is called into question by the opposition (if you have a different view on this specific situation, there are a lot of other examples among which there are bound to be at least a few that you will interpret as matching what is stated in the article).
 * I do agree that the article's title is misleading in that "Children's interests (politics)" sounds like "The role of children's interests in politics" or, as you mentioned, "How children's interests are/are not considered in politics". It should be moved to "Children's interests (rhetoric)", "Children's interests (rhetorical device)" or something similar. --178.1.148.214 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also been concerned about the title of this article, and I think the above post is on the right track. The content of the article addresses an interesting topic and has a place in WP. I propose that the article be moved to either "Children's interests (rhetoric)" or to "In the interest of children (rhetoric)". I will watch this page and make the change in a few days if no one objects. Further opinions welcome. --Greenmaven (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

POV issues with this article
This article seems somewhat biased against the idea of 'children's interests': it gives the impression that saying something should be done for the sake of the children is inevitably an appeal to emotion or other logical fallacy, or at best a post hoc rationalisation. Well, 'think of the children!' may be a cliché (and with good reason - it is an overused political device), it can also be a perfectly logical argument. Arguments based on the interests of younger generations are frequently made in the context of climate change and pensions/social security reform (for example), where they're entirely logical. And plenty of sensible things are done in the name of children's interests, such as (in many countries) performing background checks on people who want to work with children. In the family legal system, it's common for courts to focus on the best interests of the child - in the UK, that principle is actually enshrined in law by the Children's Act. Perhaps this article could use rewriting to take a slightly more neutral view of the concept of children's interests?


 * I think you're missing the point of this article (or at least the point it's trying to make): Use of the cliché phrase "won't someone please think of the children?" is a logical fallacy, a manipulative plea for pity that uses children as (rhetorical) shields in the arena of adult debate. So no, a more neutral POV is not needed. What is needed is better writing, better editing, and more sources.—75.27.41.134 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, "won't someone please think of the children?" isn't necessarily a logical fallacy. It kind of sounds to me like, ah, asking someone to please think of the children. This is what the words seem to say. What am I missing here?
 * Mayor: We'll put the school here, on the other side of the highway. Land is cheaper there.
 * Citizen: But the children will be in great danger crossing the highway. Can we build a bridge or something?
 * Mayor: Can't afford that.
 * Citizen: Won't someone please think of the children?
 * All: Logical fallacy! Logical fallacy!
 * This seems unlikely to me. I mean of course anything can be twisted for rhetorical advantage, but what's that got to do with anything? Herostratus (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No offense, but you managed to miss the point completely. Obviously when we're talking in the context of

Education and whatnot it isn't a fallacy. The problem is as such:
 * Soccer Mom: We need to search through everybodys mail! Just in case they're pedophiles!
 * Sane Person: But Ma'am, that's completely immoral and blatantly illegal.
 * Soccer Mom: WHY DON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN YOU COLD HEARTED MURDERER

And yes, this example is dramatizied for effect. Think it isn't used in this way though? The PATRIOT(S OR ELSE) act would like a word with you. 70.78.10.56 (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't miss the point; I disagree with the point, which is that children's interests are particularly and notably used this way. Of course anything can be (and is) cynically manipulated for ulterior reasons. People say "we're trying to save the environment" when they're really trying to save their property values. People say "we're trying to wean the poors from destructive dependency" when they're really trying to keep taxes low. And so on. So what? The PATRIOT act you cite is not particularly aimed at protecting children, by the way.If we want an article on this phenomenon generally, OK, although I think we already cover this. I also understand the general phenomena of "people, annoyingly, have different interests and values than me" and "people are hypocrites" and "people cynically manipulate", but I'm not sure that this article is the place to complain about that. Herostratus (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really?
Quoting from the article: "Citing the interests of children can be used to justify why something should, or should not, be done. When used as a plea for pity, this appeal to emotion can constitutes a potential logical fallacy, while when used as an appeal for sympathy for weaker members of society, or the social good of the long-term health and viability of a society, it can constitute an argument for social justice generally accepted as appropriate." Based on that, whether this is a fallacy or not seems to depend on which side of a given issue you're on. (I think that's misconstruing it: it is generally a fallacy imo.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.38.45 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether this is a fallacy or not does indeed seems to depend on which side of a given issue you're on, although its more complicated than that: there are probably times when reference to children's rights are pretty obviously cynical hypocrisy, and times when reference to children's rights are pretty obviously appropriate, if one is being honest. You may think that it's generally a fallacy because of your demographic. We should all be leery of being slaves to our demographic though. Herostratus (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Added an image
I've added an image here to this article:



with this caption: Usage of this style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change it as you wish. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)