Talk:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Also: Exclusionary Rule[edit]

This is an example of where the idiom may be employed to describe something. It has nothing to do with the idiom itself and is, therefore, more along the lines of agenda pushing than it has to do with the article itself. I could put "see also: Freedom from Religion Foundation" but that would have nothing to do with the idiom "throw out the baby with the bathwater," only a place where it could be applied to describe the negative drawbacks to a specific situation. The "see also" section could be enumerated with countless examples where the idiom could be applied, which is why it's an idiom (because there are places where it can be applied). Regardless, this is not generally the use of "see also" sections on Wikipedia as the subject under "see also" should have something to do with the idiom or its source or a similar idiom, not specific examples. I am, once again, removing your agenda pushing "See also: exclusionary rule" from the see also section. A more relevant "see also" might be something like "list of informal fallacies" or something. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of "agenda pushing" is unsubstantiated and inaccurate. See Judge Benjamin Cardozo — then of the New York Court of Appeals and generally considered one of the most influential American jurists whose opinions in several cases pronounced lasting principles of American law — stated that under the rule, "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." He noted that many states had rejected the rule, but suggested that the adoption by the federal courts would affect the practice in the sovereign states. People of the State of New York v. John Defore, 150 N.E. 585 (1926). Stagg, Tom, Judge, United States District Court Western District of Louisiana (July 15, 1991). "Letter to the Editor". Shreveport, La.: New York Times. Retrieved January 7, 2013.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Spence, Karl (2006). "Fair or Foul? Exclusionary rule hurts the innocent by protecting the guilty". Yo! Liberals! You Call This Progress?. Converse, Texas: Chattanooga Free Press/Fielding Press. ISBN 0976682605. Retrieved January 7, 2013. ISBN 978-0976682608. What you are doing here is deliberately putting your head in the sand.
Name calling doesn't help your case.
You have your view of the world. But we are all equal here.
Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one of many examples where this analogy has been made. And this New York Times piece is entitled "Out with the Bath Water." Here is a law review article Manch, Eric (2002). "THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER: HOW CONTINENTAL-STYLE POLICE PROCEDURAL REFORMS CAN COMBAT RACIAL PROFILING AND POLICE MISCONDUCT" (PDF). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 19 (3): 1026. Retrieved November 5, 2013.. Here is an example where the argument is made to create a statutory exclusionary rule Hodginson, Randall (August 31, 2006). "Maybe we do have a statutory exclusionary rule?". Retrieved November 5, 2013.. This is a common theme concerning the Exclusionary Rule, and is part and parcel of the debate. That your world doesn't include it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And for the record, I personally have no problem with the rule, but recognize the diversity of legal opinion on the subject. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Throw out the baby with the bathwater → Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater – I'm an American turning fifty-five soon and I've only ever heard "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." or "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" (and I've already added my proposed version of this common proverb to the article [1] per the reference I provided[2] ) [and removed for now that I see that it might be considered self-published, since its not clear that its not, and replaced it with published source] or "you shouldn't...", etc. The UK reference I provided gives this proverb's history and its alternate expressions as a concept which the current title is lacking since its purpose is to ensure that one avoids the error. As a form of criticism, it's usually the past tense "they threw the baby out with the bath water". Even with present tense it is "they are throwing...". In other words, I have never heard "Throw out the baby..."! Thus it seems that the version I linked to is the more appropriate article title per wp:common names when it is more commonly recognized. If so then an article move should be initiated. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Modocc (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. Huh? Either way, this issue can be handled by leaving the name as is or changing it, but with a redirect for the opposite iteration. I would also say that in a legal context, i.e., exclusionary rule Fourth Amendment cases (see above), the phrase usually appears in the present form, albeit in the past tense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating... what about let the cat out of the bag (which is a re-direct, the article is named "letting...")? The fact that it's often preceded by a "don't" doesn't change the nature of the phrase. To me, the "don't" isn't part of the idiom. The phrase is "throw out the baby..." or "throw the baby out..." you note that there are variants with different verb forms that don't have the "don't", so I don't see the real need for a move. If you really want to move it, I think Throwing out the baby with the bath water or Throwing the baby out with the bath water would be preferable to including the "don't". BTW, according to this ngram [3] "throw out baby" and "throw baby out" are pretty equally used. Interestingly, this ngram [4] shows that "don't throw the baby" is used far less than "throw the baby" (we can't search for don't throw the baby out - because ngrams only goes up to n=5, and don't gets parsed as 'do not'). Also all of these can be handled by simple redirects, no? Then again, I don't have time for doing more research on this at the moment, maybe I'll report back later. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C11
Huh
in hieroglyphs
An endless discussion? Huh Sorry for the pun. No, I think we agree. I also liked your research. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Letting the cat out of the bag is the article title and seems better, but let the cat out of the bag is the listed phrase whereas the current title as to throw out the baby is not. Its opposites (let's reveal the secret (or not)) are likely to be advocated thus inherently part of the concept. In addition, titles are capitalized so they may not be read as phrases that include contexts when used (context often completes the concept expressed) and thus usage can actually matter. The UK reference mainly goes into the historical usages and "Throwing..." is likewise seemingly better, but I believe the entire concept here should be titled as indicated by the source. Moreover, the current title phrase exists as in "he is going to throw out the baby with the bath water", but if it is a less common phrasing because it doesn't explicitly include the entire concept then a redirect for it suffices. -Modocc (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khestwol: Can you please cite some references for that claim? I think most of us would agree that "seems" is not a great reason to change article titles. We have one ref above from OP, but I'm not sure it is enough to justify a move. My links above show to the contrary, but I'm very willing to see other sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By excluding the term "bathwater" (or "bath-water") from your search you have been searching the wrong terms. I suggest go to Google Books, search "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and then "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" and then subtract the latter number of hits from the former. This will give us an accurate representation that the "don't" form is used more frequently in books. Then, also compare "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" and again it will give a lower number of hits than the proposed "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". Khestwol (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the search and got about 920 results for "throw the baby out with the bathwater", as compared to about 696 results for "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater", so the "don't" form is more common than the "without-don't" form. The "without-don't" form is used only 920-696 = 224 times. On the other hand, "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" gave only about 389 results. This successfully demonstrates that the proposed title "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is at least 2 times as common as both "throw the baby out with the bathwater (without "don't")" and "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater". Khestwol (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modocc I certainly agree that a move would be beneficial but I was wondering whether this might be to better to a title such as Throwing the baby out with the bathwater or Throwing out the baby with the bathwater but this is based more on personal interpretation than reflection on usage.
I was previously proposed a page move to Call a spade a spade and I think that this works because (unlike the title Throw out the baby with the bathwater) an actual exhortation is involved. The format can both he used to interpret "s/he has thrown ...", "s/he is throwing", "they have thrown ...", "they are throwing ..." as well as in the exhortations "Don't do it". I think that a "Throwing ..." title may better present all options. Some related books searches are:
GregKaye 08:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your Google search results are useful and support the alternative "Throwing out the baby...", but because of the myriad of different ways that the idiom "Don't throw..." can be expressed it's not conclusive. For me, "don't throw" is better because it's unambiguously explicit that the metaphorical baby should not be thrown out, and certainly this connotation is nearly always expressed even when the secondary source only extracts the idiom "To throw the baby...". --Modocc (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a dictionary [5] that supports the current title for the idiom, thus the available sources conflict with each other (see below). In addition, the source I provided is self-published, but claims it is based on reliable sources so... ? -Modocc (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source uses the form "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" and explains the origin. The proverb, in the form of 'do not empty out the baby with the bath water', was in general use in English from the late 19th century onward. Khestwol (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is the self-published source that I provided above and I've removed it. So unless more reliable sourcing can be found this is a wild goose chase. Here is a link to its about page [6]. -Modocc (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source claims that it is up to publishing standards, so perhaps I should inquire at Wikipedia's reliable source board to see what the actual standing of this source is. -Modocc (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced this questionable source with another one [7] and given that its only a lower-grade level text, additional research is required when we have time. --Modocc (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge idiom dictionary keeps the baby but also throws out the "don't". -Modocc (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, Michael Quinion's World Wide Words (cited in the article) seems to implicitly support the "Don't" version. I think this is a How many angels can dance on the head of a pin kind of argument, and we ought to go with Randy Kryn's suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot of potential variations for this one. An alternative might be Baby and bathwater idioms, but any decision towards this type of title would need the agreement of whoever would work on the article. GregKaye 02:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Re-added bit about completely alternate reading of idiom[edit]

I removed an aside in the intro, which was then promptly re-added by someone in a commented out form. To reiterate my comment in the edit summary: the source cited doesn't even say this. This is a strange reading, with an alternative meaning, and as it is not even in the source, it is thus OR.

104.128.253.221 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pooping picture?[edit]

In the German image at the top of the page, does the bottom-right show a naked man making a huge poop? I was not able to use the image for my intended purpose after noticing that. I'm not suggesting the image should be censored, but I wonder if there is a convention in Wikipedia about calling out potentially offensive details in images that might be easily overlooked. --Michaeladamkatz (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater&oldid=1218573264"