Talk:Think of the children/Archive 3

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move to Think of the children, which is uncontested here Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Children& → Think of the children –
 * 1) No need for the parentheses disambiguation, as there is no other page with this title.
 * 2) Simpler and more succinct is better for ease of navigation to the page by the reader.
 * 3) Other suggestions for simple titles such as perhaps What about the children or Think of the children or For the children could also be discussed. See for example wiktionary:think of the children.
 * 4) Not sure yet which one is most common name used in secondary sources, per WP:COMMONNAME? --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  13:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't really support this, unless the article itself were substantially changed. "Children's interests" is a large topic and an article on that would have to talk about the UN declaration on the rights of children or maybe child-labor laws and so forth (the article Children's rights probably covers some of that). This is more about the use of chilren's interests in political palaver. But you're right in that parens are (I think) usually used for disambiguation, so something like Childrens interests in political rhetoric might be better.

Your other suggestions are worth considering, but not too sure about them either. For one thing, there are various phrases bandied about, and not sure how to pick one; for another, any of these would require at least a partial re-scoping of the article, and we want to be careful about going back to the old, sub-standard versions. Not sure what to do here. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking back, I see that the article has had various names. For The Children (politics) and Think of the children and perhaps others. As to, say, "Think of the children", the problem is that almost nobody uses this exact phrase straight up (not even Kenneth Dickson, probably) but rather as a sarcastic characterization of one's opponents. (Dunno why it is that "Oooooh, think of the children" should be heard but not "Oooooh, think of the cripples" or "Oooooh, think of the workers" and so forth, but it is what it is.) Anyway, it's kind of hard to write a decent article about a couple of sarcastic characterizations, which is probably why this article has been AfD'd four times and possibly shouldn't exist (although it's possible; I've done it myself, at You kids get off my lawn!, which maybe could be used a partial model). Herostratus (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, interesting comments. You kids get off my lawn! is a most fascinating model, and a good argument for moving this page to "Think of the children". That's probably the best place for the title of this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Source note: "Think of the children" results in government publications indexed by the United States Government Printing Office. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Changed proposal to "Think of the children", above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to "Think of the children". Just to clarify that I support a move to "Think of the children" as the best title for this page. I've put together some research on this particular term, in the subsection, below. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I never liked the move to "Children's Interests" anyway, it's part of this naming school that thinks extremely generic descriptions should be used over a more famous phrase.  This page isn't really about all usages of invoking children in rhetoric, it's about the specific "but think of the children" style phrasings. SnowFire (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Simpsons
The Simpsons episode Much Apu About Nothing mentioned this:


 * Homer: Mr. Mayor, I hate to break it to you, but this town is infested by bears.
 * Helen: Think of the children!

(The mayor sets up a Bear Patrol, which predictably costs tax money. One week later, the complaints are back:)
 * Homer: Down with taxes! Down with taxes!
 * Helen: Won't somebody please think of the children?

--The Master (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Think of the children - additional possible sources
Think of the children - additional possible sources: &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Think of the children" - yields forty-four (44) results in government publications indexed by the United States Government Printing Office.
 * 2) 9,140,000 results - in Google search of .gov usage.
 * 3) 2,660,000 results in search at Google Books.
 * 4) 2,050 results - in search of academic scholarly sources at Google Scholar.
 * 2,540 results - for search of "think of the children" in NewsBank.
 * 1) 91 results - for search of headline only results for phrase "think of the children" in NewsBank.
 * 2) Note: Specific sources previously noted at Articles for deletion/For the children (politics).
 * 3) Academic journal article =
 * 4) Interesting news source:

Jack Marshall, Eugenics, and POV
Perhaps I am just horribly misinterpreting the final section of the article (("Usage to Circumvent Logical Debate."), but as it stands, that section seems to argue that the opponents of some fairly extreme social darwinian/pro eugenics position are illogical. This comes off to me as highly POV. Even if we assume that the "misty-eyed crusaders" routinely exploit this fallacy, the section gives undue weight to the apparent misdoings of this group...in fact, in an article that's purely about an informal logical fallacy, it shouldn't give any weight to that at all! 24.96.91.26 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Who says its purely about a logical fallacy? I think it's a lot more complicated than that.


 * Generally, appeals to children interests are not engaging in a logical fallacy but just part of normal discourse ("I think the new library should have a children's section" -- it may be that that would not be a good expenditure of the town's limited resources, but it's not obvious nonsense).


 * Sometimes appeals to children's interests are illegitimate (hypocritical, appeal to emotion, and so on) and sometimes -- just as often I suppose -- accusations that the appeal to children's interests is illegitimate are themselves wrong, I guess.


 * If in our children's-section-of-the-library example above, a person at the meeting then says "Children's section? Oh boo-hoo-hoo think of the children! Next question." then who is engaging in a logical fallacy here?


 * The Marshall passage is an example of use of the concept and a pretty good example. Marshall is redlinked but is is reasonably notable and could have an article probably. I guess it's up to the reader to decide if "Think of the children" as Marshall describes it here is an example of a logical fallacy, or if it's an example of a false claim that it's a logical fallacy. I suppose it depends on whether or not you agree with Marshall's main thesis (which, yes, you are reading correctly). Herostratus (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're entirely ignoring the point mentioned by that user. The section in question is advocating for an extreme, particular position, and shows a clear bias. Even if it is not intentionally 'advocating' for it, it implies opponents are behaving illogically. Perhaps a more neutral example could be chosen instead of something so controversial and inflammatory? 174.57.242.210 (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well but there are several examples in the article of extreme positions. Anita Bryant is in there and so forth.


 * I'm speculating, but based on my others engagements with this article, I think that some editors come here of this mind: "Think of the children!" is always used by people in favor of censorship or banning homosexuality or banning drugs and whatnot. And those people are bad guys and usually hypocrites, and so the use of concept in polemics is always wrong and bad, and that's what the article needs to demonstrate.


 * So I wonder if this mindset is in play: "Anita Bryant said Think of the children and she's obviously a bad guy, so let's include that. Jack Marshall made fun of think of the children and he's obviously a bad guy, so let's not include that since it doesn't fit the narrative we're trying to establish here." If this is the actual issue here, this is not something we want to do. Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Research for additional secondary sources
Next step: Research for additional secondary sources.

Will continue further research to find additional secondary sources to further expand the Use in debate section.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Found some great secondary sources but still in process of research to try to find some additional secondary sources. Will update back here during the course of research. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Images or other illustration
Looking into potential images or other illustration to try to break up the text a bit.

Maybe one of those Articles in a series... templates, perhaps related to logic somehow.

Will update if I come across something. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NOR
&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) This edit by is unacceptable.
 * 2) It removed the entirety of the Quality improvement effort I made on this article, removing all secondary sources and replacing them with the article's prior poor state which violates the Wikipedia site policy of WP:No original research.
 * 3) Further, it leaves the article in a terribly poor state of quality, relying almost solely upon primary sources to draw inferences.
 * I cannot see how the current version is "not an improvement" over the old version. --Neil N  talk to me 03:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, agreed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality improvement project
I'll start doing some research for a quality improvement project on this page.

At this point most of the material should be replaced.

Best to start out utilizing secondary sources and not primary sources.

News articles and the like are acceptable, but academic scholarly sources would be best.

Will provide updates on the talk page with source notes. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Revamped the article with only secondary sources. Still in process of additional research for more secondary sources on the specific topic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Note: Please note that I posted this subsection in July 2013, over a year ago, with a notification that as part of my Quality improvement project I'd be replacing most of the material on the page with secondary sourced content.
 * 2) There was no response from now til then until after my entire Quality improvement project was mostly completed, and the response then by was: to revert the entire thing.
 * 3) No prior attempt by to reply to my above July 2013 comment during all that time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an improvement
No, the recent proposed edits (a series of edits around November 2 2014) are not an improvement. Let's slow down here and look at these proposed edits.

It is true that the edits add a great deal of material, with accompanying references. Some nice pictures are added. The sections are divided well. The prose style is good. Everything is spelled correctly. The references are formatted according our standards. And so on.

On the other hand, the article is ruined.

Basically, the article (in its new version) takes a position. It's essentially a polemic disguised as an article. The position taken is, more or less, something like this: "When someone says something along the lines of 'Well, we need to consider the effects of global climate change on our children' (or whatever), that person is unfailingly irrational, hypocrite, or a blackguard". The article doesn't say that, but I challenge any reasonable and neutral person to deny that leaving this impression is quite certainly the effect, and most likely the intent, of these changes.

(It may be true that when someone says something along the lines of "Well, we need to consider the effects of global climate change on our children" (or whatever), that person is unfailingly irrational, hypocrite, or a blackguard, but that's a fairly radical belief, I think it safe to say, and the onus would be on the editor to demonstrate that there is no corresponding reasonable counterargument along the lines of maybe they're not irrational, hypocrite, or a blackguard, and failing that, to make the article a little more balanced.)

For instance, the material on Jack Marshall is ridiculous. Marshall is not nearly as bad a person as his take on "think of the children" might make him appear, and he has interesting and useful things to say on a number of issues. But on this issue he said what he said and AFAIK hasn't retracted it. Whether that represents a useful example of anything is something we could discuss. But to pretend that Marshall said something completely different from what he did say (as the summary of his writing in the proposed edits does), this not helpful to the reader, and let's not do this.

Anyway, the editor proposing these changes (User:Cirt) is rather insisting, and I would point out WP:BRD which is a the right arm of the important policy WP:CONSENSUS, and so I would hope the editor would not let this devolve to a behavioral issues by edit warring, but discuss this like reasonable gentlemen. Let's slow down and consider these proposed changes carefully. There's no hurry. Herostratus (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the version you're reverting to is extremely poor. An unsourced lead followed by a bunch of examples. How is that an encyclopedic article? --Neil N  talk to me 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: User:Herostratus violated WP:No original research policy multiple times:
 * 1) has now twice violated site policy of WP:No original research: DIFF 1 and DIFF 2.
 * 2) removed all secondary sources I had added to the article, and reverted to this version which was tagged with Primary sources.
 * 3) The intent of my Quality improvement project was to address the Primary sources tag &mdash; by adding secondary sources and removing primary sources that violated WP:No original research.
 * 4) I was quite careful in my Quality improvement project to directly find information specific to the topic and the phrases themselves.
 * , on the other hand, has failed to provide any secondary sources that back up his point-of-view regarding this topic.
 * 1) Unfortunately it seems that is operating from POV of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regard to what is actually reflected in the secondary sources.
 * 2) My research for how secondary sources discussed the terms "Think of the children" and "What about the children" reflect what the sources themselves say.
 * 3) The state of the article after my Quality improvement project is a significant improvement over the prior state of the article when it was tagged with the Primary sources tag.
 * Regarding Herostratus comment: "that's a fairly radical belief, I think it safe to say, and the onus would be on the editor to demonstrate that there is no corresponding reasonable counterargument along the lines of maybe they're not irrational, hypocrite, or a blackguard, and failing that, to make the article a little more balanced." What? How is the onus that way? The onus is on the editor that violated WP:No original research and wholesale removed sourced info, not the other way around. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the other position on the phrase? --Neil N  talk to me 04:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa let's slow down. Let's not get all behavioral here. We all want the article to be the best it can be so we're all on the same side here. We can hash all this out, but not tonite, and there are a lot of proposed changes here! Here's my initial take on the matter. I don't have sources for this at hand, but given human nature I would surprised if the following wasn't true (and since it's true we ought to be able to find sources for it):
 * When people say they are considering children's interest, sometimes they are bad people -- hypocrites, liars, demagogues, morons, blackguards, fanatics, what have you.
 * And sometimes not.
 * And the article should reflect that.

It may be that people who consider children's interests (or say they are doing) are universally, or almost universally, covering up some ulterior motive, are hypocrites, or are some other form of undesirable person. Color me skeptical, though. My experience is that things are more complicated than that.

(It may even be that children, as a class, are worthless and shouldn't have their interests considered -- after all, they are "takers" and contribute little direct material benefit to society -- but that's more a matter of opinion and hard to prove or disprove, I guess.)

It's the same for a lot of things... Dictatorship of the proletariat, to pick one at random, or any of a myriad of other phrases and concepts. I have not read our article on "Dictatorship of the proletariat" but I hope it does not say -- or imply, by cherry-picking material or whatever -- that "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is always used by blackguards to enslave people and that's all you need to know or that it's always used by intelligent men of good will to describe a functional state of society and that's all you need to know. It's both!

So let's have a reasonably balanced article. I haven't looked at the behavioral allegations above (it's late here) but I will, and if I've done poorly I'll try to to do better. I didn't create the article. There's a great deal of proposed new material here, and there's no hurry -- the Wikipedia is here for the long term and it's more important to get it right then get it now. So how shall we proceed? Paragraph by paragraph, or what? I'm open to suggestion.

In the meantime I'm confident you'll do the right thing and roll back your proposed changes until we can get this all sorted out. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My main concern with rolling back is that the old version is noticeably poorer. I suggest you cut out content which you feel is unbalanced as an immediate measure as we see if sources exist for other viewpoints. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 05:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's noticeably poorer in your opinion. There are various ways to be poor. Material riches are not proof against poverty of spirit, and adding pretty images and nice formatting and so forth to an article is not necessarily proof of improvement. Please note that the rule does not say "[I]f your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus unless you don't want to because you're certain that your stuff is better." More to follow, and the first thing we have to agree on is what this article wants to be about. I'll open a separate discussion on that, but probably not tonite. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't just say what you want in an article based on your personal opinion while failing to back it up with any cited sources. And this article is not about "children's interests" as you refer to it -- that is covered already at Children's rights. This article is about use of the phrase: "Think of the children" and "What about the children" in society. And the sources in the article specifically discuss those phrases. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Background sect
I found a potential good source for a new Background sect.

And with that discovery I think this article can remain focused on use of these iterations of the phrase itself, and Wikipedia could stand to have a separate article dealing with the much more wide-ranging topic of the "Politics of children" or something like that.

I've got to read through it a bit more, and also try to find perhaps one or two other secondary sources to use as well, but will update when able. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't see my post up here about my work on a Background sect, which could also serve to refer the reader to more information about Children's rights. It's ironic because I quite think you might appreciate this section, perhaps you could wait to see it and see if you think it makes the article better. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, added new section, Background, sourced to book Children and the Politics of Culture published by Princeton University Press. Please see DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So what does this article want to be?
What does this article want to be, what does it want to be named, and how does it want to balance and present its material? Here's my take:
 * It can be about the idiomatic phrase "Think of the children".
 * It can be a serious article about thinking of children, in the sense of considering children's interests, and how that plays out in policy discussion and other places.
 * But it can't really be about both, not easily.

I'll use an article I started and mostly wrote, You kids get off my lawn!, in some of these examples. It's a short article and you can read it like one minute.

You kids get off my lawn! is about the idiom. It describes how (and why) the idiom is used to make fun of cranky old people. It'd doesn't have anything to say about whether cranky old people should be made fun of, are or are not still an asset to society or over the hill, or matters like that.

See the difference?

That is, the article is not about the reality of property rights, generational interaction, or class conflicts as exemplified by the actual crossing of lawns by kids. If it was, then it would have to present that in a balanced way: maybe sometimes it's an overreaction to shout at someone just cutting a tiny corner or one's lawn, and maybe sometimes the little fuckers should get off the fucken lawn. It's not like the kids are always in the right, you know. Anyway, that would be entirely different article with an entirely different title -- maybe Suburban property right generational conflicts or something.

You get what I'm saying?

If this article want to be about the idiomatic phrase "Think of the children", then it has to be just about that exact phrase and very very similar phrases -- I'd allow as "What about the children?" might be OK too since it's used the same way. But nothing else. You can't include just any old phrase covering the same general topic.

I can't include, in the article about the idiom You kids get off my lawn!, a discussion of phrases like "Kids these days are so disrespectful!" or "In my day we respected people's property!" and so forth. Then the article would be about something else and would need a different title -- List of quotes about generational conflicts or something. Entirely different article.

Still with me here?

If the article want to be about the idiom, then we have to think about how to handle that. My take is that you want to mainly discuss the phrase as a sarcastic strawman and rejoinder -- bring in Helen Lovejoy and all that. Beyond briefly listing some concrete examples of the phrase being used seriously to show how the sarcastic use of the idiom might have arisen, we don't want to get into serious public policy issues.

One reason for that (not the only one) is that if we're going to describe an idiom we want to stay far away from expressing an opinion on whether or when it is appropriate to deploy it. (Which your proposed new version does, in spades.)

But if instead the article wants to be how children's interests are addressed in general... that's a very large topic. The article would need a different title of course. It's been moved around quite a bit, was formerly named Children's interests I think and we could go back to that or some other title. But... I am very very skeptical of any article that states or implies that addressing children's interests is always a cynical ploy, is all I'm saying. To the extent the article implies that, I'm skeptical that you're not cherry-picking your material.

Or if you want to address how children's interests are used in a specific narrow context, such as censorship of sexual material, we could do that (also a different article with a different title, though). What you won't be able to, if I have anything to say about it, is write an article that effectively takes the position "People use children's interests to override adult interests regarding access to pornography for the general public, or try to, and that sucks and is wrong and they should stop doing that". It's a lot more complicated than that and we're supposed to present a balanced overview of these things.

So let's begin with that. What's your vision of what you want the article to be? Herostratus (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's obvious (in my opinion at least) that the article should be about the phrase as it's named after the phrase. An article on children's interests would not be named "Think of the children" but rather something like Children's rights. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with, this article is and should remain in its current high quality state about the phrase "Think of the children" and "What about the children", itself and how it is used in society, which it amply discusses quite well, and stays close to that topic. The only other thing I was going to add before chose to violate WP:No original research, was a Background section. That's it.  is correct that everything else that Herostratus describes can be covered quite well and is already at the article Children's rights. The topics Herostratus wishes to discuss are also covered in articles: Convention on the Rights of the Child, Timeline of young people's rights in the United States, and Child labor laws in the United States (the last of which is tagged for needing quality improvement). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I also agree is should be about the idiom. So this is good, this a place to stand and let's work together. So let's move forward from there. But not until you restore the article to its previous state per normal Wikipedia practice, since your edits are contended by a reasonable editor on a reasonable basis. I'm not inclined to engage until you do that, as a matter of principal. I've made a personal copy of your version at User:Herostratus/TOTC and will use that as a reference; you are invited to also do, as I won't be changing that page, unless by all-round consent. Herostratus (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the article should be reverted as you have given no specific objections to any of the current material. Instead of building off a solid foundation, it seems you want to build off quicksand, and expose readers to a poorer version. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't allow you to revert this article to a very poor state of quality and allow you to violate Wikipedia site policy of WP:No original research. I've asked and you've failed to provide any secondary sources to back up your point of view. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well then. Let's get the behavioral issues sorted out, then we can work on the content. Assuming that that can be resolved, I'll walk back my pledge to not engage for the moment and try to set describe some ways forward. I'm not backing off from boycotting engaging with you generally until you release the hostages, so to speak, and return the article to its previous stable state so that we can work from there.

OK then, we've agreed to treat the phrase as an idiom. So let's think about how to do that. Here's the lede of the version you've proposed:

Here's an alternate lede which is more along the lines of how I approach idiom articles. I just threw this together quickly as a general example and it's not as well crafted as your work and I don't have the refs (although I'm confident they're available):

You see the difference? My version describes the idiom and how its actually used, and without taking a position on whether or when people ought to use it. Your version doesn't even describe the phrase as an idiom (I've never seen "and similar rhetorical phrases" in any idiom definition), describes it almost 180° removed from the facts, because It's the people who are opposed to them -- people who think children's interests are generally (or in the particular case they're commenting on) given too much weight, or advanced cynically, or advanced by idiots, or so on, who use the phrase as an idiom.
 * 1) very few people advancing children's interests use that exact phrase (although some do, as you've pointed out with some examples, but only as a random effect of there only being so many ways to express basic thoughts) and
 * 2) anyway those people are using the phrase unidiomatically and just as a literal phrase with identical apparent and actual meanings.

As a matter of fact I've written four articles on idioms (but not this one) and have another on the stove. I don't take a postion on these idioms. In Loose lips sink ships I didn't write "Loose lips sink ships is an American English idiom meaning 'beware of unguarded talk'. It's often used as bullying device to quash debate or silence minority views" or anything like that.

Your version is an essay, not an article, and a quite polemical essay at that, notwithstanding that it's cloaked in the apparent form of a proper article, and very well at that, as you're very skilled technically as an editor. And you put a lot of work into this, and I'm sure you'd be frustrated to see it picked apart. But the Wikipedia is not a respecter of individual effort and can't be. Your work just presents such a one-sided and simplistic "good guys vs. bad guys" vibe that I'm not sure how much we can salvage from it. We'll have to see.

Anyway... we are supposed to be here to educate and inform. We're not trying to win an election or something. So let's not have that mindset.

Since we seem to be so far apart on what we're trying to do here, I'm not sure how to best proceed. My inclination would be a short, vague article, as otherwise it's going to take a lot of effort to get this right if we want to go into detail, and probably months of work. So we could work toward that. If not... I dunno... an RfC on the lede, and then work down from there? Not sure... help me out here. Hopefully your advice won't be a continuation of the "my way or the highway" approach I've been getting to this point, as that truly would make for a tedious affair. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede, like the rest of the article, relies on what the secondary sources say. Every single sentence and fact in the lede and the article body is backed up to cited sources. None of them that I've come across refer to it as an "idiom", but rather a phrase. Your proposed version is again a violation of WP:No original research and beyond that simply an artificial creation of what you want the article to say &mdash; rather than a reflection of secondary sources., you've yet again failed to bring forth any secondary sources to support your point of view. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically what you're proposing is for us editors to arbitrarily decide what the article should say on our own, and then just add that to the article. That's a violation of WP:No original research. We can't just come to some arbitrary agreement based on our opinions. The article itself should reflect what the preponderance of sources say about use of the phrase "Think of the children" and related phrases including "What about the children". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Olive branch
I'm extending an olive branch here to.

I've done a bit more research and started a new section in the article, called Use to advocate for children.

I've placed this section prominently above the section on Debate tactic, even though the latter is how it's commonly discussed in secondary sources.

Though it is a primary sourced section at the moment drawing from actual use of the phrase itself &mdash; hopefully this will be an acceptable use of primary sources to provide some balance.

It should be okay per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

I sincerely hope this is a start to a good faith compromise. :)

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please bear with me, I know at present the section is a bit smaller than the other subsections of the article, but I'm in the process of ongoing research to expand it further. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

An outside perspective
drew my attention to this discussion. I'd like to add my thoughts and a suggested path forward. Hope this is helpful.

It appears to me that, for the most part, the phrase has been in use for a very long time; but that critical and popular commentary on it has come only in the last couple decades (perhaps starting with Wee, 1995).

Wikipedia's role is to summarize critical and scholarly work. It seems sensible to me that scholarly consideration of the phrase would focus on its potential for use in a rhetorically deceptive or manipulative way, or on instances where that has occurred; there simply aren't that many interesting questions about its straightforward use that might engage a researcher. It seems natural to me that "bias" along those lines (if you want to call it bias) would occur in the scholarship on the phrase; and if that is the case, Wikipedia should accurately reflect that "bias." However, the potential or historical misuse of the phrase is different from the implication that it always, or even typically, used in that way, as suggested this article does.

It does not seem to me that this article is biased to a degree that presents a problem for a non-peer-reviewed article (i.e., not FA, GA, or A class). I do think there is room for improvement; but that kind of improvement is normally handled by gradually adding material to the article, editing what is there, discussing it, etc. I think wholesale reversion is unwarranted, mainly because the previous version did not have many scholarly references, and failed to help the reader gain an understanding or overview of critical consideration of the term.

I think an approach that might help move forward would be to incorporate -- either in the lead section, or in the first section -- something about the chronology of the use of the term. For instance, a statement that it has been used for at least x decades in public discourse, with a few examples; and that starting (?) in the 1990s, the term began to attract increasing amounts of commentary in both academic and popular contexts. This would help the reader distinguish between the way it might have been used by Bill Clinton in 1999, as distinct from how somebody might use it now, when there has been more critical discussion of the term.

There are also probably a number of worthwhile tweaks that could decrease any (likely unintentional) implication that deception is the only, or the most common, form of use. It's definitely not Wikipedia's proper role to draw conclusions about something like that. But, to whatever extent that problem exists here, it's fixable. -Pete (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this in-depth analysis. A problem is that I haven't yet come across scholarly sources that specifically discuss a chronology of the usage of the phrase, though I'll add some date points to the lede intro section if that helps. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that needs to be a problem, depending on how it's phrased. It's possible to draw the reader's attention to the dates of the scholarship that is cited, without drawing a conclusion about it. -Pete (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as you can see in the article body, I made sure to note the year of publication of each work &mdash; and also to organize each section chronologically in that same fashion. I'll try to add more years to the lede as well, but it might make the intro sect a bit bulkier. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added some additional notes and years to the lede section, so it now has a bit more flow of progression through scholarship over time. I hope that's a bit clearer now. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First image is not just 1996
First image is not just 1996, but from multiple different years. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes to sect - Debate tactic
Let's please keep the sourced info in the sect, Debate tactic.

It's attributed directly to each author where appropriate.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to lede intro sect
Recent edits to lede intro sect had added non-complete sentence fragments. And also unsourced info like "meme", etc. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible source, New York Times
Possible new source, could perhaps be used in the article:



&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede sect should follow same order as article body
Lede intro sect should follow same order as article body, per WP:LEAD.

Please keep paragraph order in that format.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes to lede para about Simpsons introduced run-on sentences
Changes to the lede paragraph about The Simpsons introduced overly long sentences and run-on sentences.

Please, let's keep it to the shorter sentence structure as previously copy edited by, thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits to last para of lede added incomplete sentences and removed references
Edits to the last paragraph of the lede intro sect added incomplete sentences and also removed references.

Please, discuss here on the talk page.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Captions require periods at ends of full sentences
If captions are full sentences, they require periods at the end of those sentences. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style/Captions, it states about punctuation in captions: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period." Please don't do this again. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested paragraph for popularization of the phrase
"Think of the children" was popularized through repeated satiric use on the animated television program The Simpsons, beginning in 1996. Character Helen Lovejoy  first exhorted  – "Won't somebody please think of the children!" –  during a contentious debate among townsfolks of the fictional town of Springfield. The catchphrase was reused in several subsequent episodes to the same effect. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, the use of the extra long hyphen &mdash; twice &mdash; in the same sentence, creates a bit of an overly long sentence here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've incorporated above suggestions, and copy edit that paragraph accordingly, I think it looks a bit better now. Please see DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see yours before composing this:

Then let's ditch the long hyphens. I only added them to set off the quote. Here:

The term was popularized through repeated satiric use on the animated television program The Simpsons, beginning in 1996. Character Helen Lovejoy  first exhorted  "Won't somebody please think of the children!" during a contentious debate among townsfolks of the fictional town of Springfield. The catchphrase was reused in several subsequent episodes to the same effect. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see my update, above -- Update: I've incorporated above suggestions, and copy edit that paragraph accordingly, I think it looks a bit better now. Please see DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your suggestion. How about:

"Think of the children" was popularized through repeated satiric use on the animated television program The Simpsons, beginning in 1996. Character Helen Lovejoy  pleaded  "Won't somebody please think of the children!" during a contentious debate among townsfolks of the fictional town of Springfield. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Some good ideas there, I've incorporated them, how's this: DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Getting close. However, it strikes me as relevant to make clear The Simpsons is an animated television series, as that is a central characteristic of the show; on the other hand, I do not see the importance of using an internal link to an article on fictional towns when simply mentioning that Springfield is a one is sufficient to establish that distinction; interested readers can read more about fictional towns (not the subject, even tangentially of the article) using the Springfield link (where a link to fictional towns - in an article about them - is the very fourth word in).  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk)
 * Good points, please see DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rockin'!. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your professional and polite talk page participation. I'm quite glad we were able to work out all issues here on the discussion page to an amicable resolution. Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, likeiwse. It helps balm the all too frequent bumptious engagements with others lacking your patience and tact. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind words about me. I really appreciate it! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are relevant
Images are relevant, added them back.

Perhaps they could be discussed, individually, here on the talk page.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see that the article gains anything by having photos of Cory Doctorow or Laurie Penny, who appear to have just commentated on the quote - is there a reason why we've chosen those two people, or are they just the easiest to get CC-licenced photos for? Either way, it seems out-of-place to have pictures of them speaking at live events, and to caption that they "wrote" about the subject (and may never have delivered a speech about it).
 * Bill Oakley would merit a picture if he was personally responsible for the phrase's influential introduction to the Simpsons, but the text doesn't seem to support that - just that he talked about what may have been somebody else's work, on a DVD commentary. Is there more to it? --McGeddon (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, the images certainly are free-use, could you suggest any alternative free-use images we could add to the article to swap in, instead? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no suggestions. --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've swapped out the picture of Bill Oakley for the actual writer of the episode, David X. Cohen. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also trimmed the size of the image of Penny so it's taking up less of that sect. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A photo of the actual writer who popularised the phrase in the 90s seems more useful, but what does it add to show the reader what the faces of two (arbitary?) commentators look like? --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, removed those 2 images, per comments, above. It'd be most appreciated, however, if or anyone else wished to suggest alternative images to add, instead. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Etymology source - Laity 2013
Possible source on etymology of the phrase:



There's a bit more in the chapter and on page 128 as well.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible source - Bruenig 2014


Possible source for the article.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible source - Chappell 2014


Possible source for the article.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible source - O'Neill 2015


Possible source for the article.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible source - Reagan 2015


Possible source for the article.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for GA
I've nominated this article for Good Article quality consideration, at Good Article nominations. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Prior first GA Review
This article had a prior first GA Review, review subpage may be seen at: Talk:Think of the children/GA1. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

UN Charter reference
In the "Background" section, although Vivienne Wee is cited as mentioning the United Nations Charter as protecting children, children don't seem to be mentioned there. All the best,  Mini  apolis  16:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Every single sentence in this article and every single fact is backed up to the cited sources. Did you check the source? From the cited source, page 188:
 * "'Alternatively, children's vulnerability could be interpreted as purity and innocence, needing the protection of responsible adults. It is this second, protective mode of interpretation that underlies the very idea of children's rights, needing the protection of a UN charter -- hence the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.'"
 * Does that make it clearer for you? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, added direct quote from the source text, at DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I was confused, since the UN Charter and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (a much later treaty) are two different documents.  Mini  apolis  19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, best not to assume, however. Thank you for understanding now that I've provided the full relevant direct quotation. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested possible sources
Some suggested possible sources to look into, were first recommended, here. Looks like about 4 sources that could be of some use. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Formatted cites for these:











Of the above, the book by Lim 2008 and the book review by McLemee 2008 are useful, and could be added to the article.

The Salmon 1997 thesis is not directly relevant.

The 1999 article in Political Communication is very relevant.

The 2006 article in the journal Polity is less relevant than the 1999 article in Political Communication, but could be looked at to see if it has any brief mentions on this topic that are interesting.

I'll add the most directly relevant ones to the Further reading sect, for now, pending more analysis. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lim 2002
Lim 2002, research later published in his book as cited, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)