Talk:Kick the cat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kick the cat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2014. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn.

is this article about the idiom or about abusing subordinates?

There's no clear topic to the article Bhny (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are one and the same. The idiom refers to abusing persons (or animals) with less power than oneself. Softlavender (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean a use–mention distinction. Either the topic is "the idiom kick the cat" or the topic is "displaced aggression" Bhny (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a Wiktionary entry (it's a Wikipedia entry), if that answers your question; although at one point someone briefly tried to make a Wiktionary entry out of a stub article on the subject. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It half reads like a Wiktionary article on an idiom and half like an encyclopedia article on "displaced aggression". You seem to keep missing my point. Bhny (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article isnt perfect but essentially its about an idiom which has in recent times been considered to have academic value.--Penbat (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a psychological and cultural concept which has come to be described by a catchy idiom. Why is that a problem? I looked at the article "use-mention distinction" which you linked, and while I think I understand the distinction it makes (between talking about a thing and talking about the word for the thing) I don't see why a Wikipedia article can't do both. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]