Talk:the terrorists will have won

Request for verification
Remember, we need to cite texts that meet the definition specifically. Is this supposed to be an idiom? Equinox ◑ 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is certainly a catchphrase in US public discourse. I'm sure that by our ever-more-inclusive definition of "idiom" this is one. It would be easily attestable (200+ on b.g.c., 600+ on News). DCDuring TALK 02:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it has much meaning as a stand-alone expression. I don't think I've encountered it as anything other than the consequent in a conditional sentence: If x then the terrorists will have won. -- WikiPedant 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cited, IMHO. Worth an RfD, IMO. It would at least be a precedent. Just as "Sieg heil" has a meaning separate from whatever it's one-time literal meaning might have been, this may also have a life of its own - or not. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I increasingly feel that we need some sort of category or mechanism for "phrases that have been used many times", where they aren't otherwise idiomatic or needing special understanding. Things like "I have a dream", "the beginning of the end", etc. Equinox ◑ 03:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Does catchphrase capture what you are thinking about? It seems worth raising at BP at some point, perhaps when a couple more people seem favorably disposed. DCDuring TALK 03:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is actually SoP in its full meaning any more than most proverbs. There is metaphor, allusion, and ellipsis being deployed even in this apparently straightforward clause. DCDuring TALK 11:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider these sorts of items to be quotations, as they refer back to an original specific use, and so they belong on WikiQuote rather than here. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence in the citations that most current uses refer to any particular early use. Some of the current uses refer to, for example, a judge's quote that itself dates from well after the term had become something of a cliche. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems more like a sentence than an idiom. Move to rfd, is other people agree with me. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We already know it is not an idiom and would not meet CFI. It is also does not have an obvious home in another WMF project (WikiQuote, WP). I suppose the question is whether we should have a BP discussion on catchphrases in general or an RfD discussion about this catchphrase. We seem to be unwilling to delete CFI-violating terms on Saurus, phrasebook, gazetteer, and translation-target grounds, so why not catchphrases? Cliches and catchphrases seem worthy of linguistic interest and susceptible to lexicographic treatment. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, because if we delete this entry, the terrorists will have won. Hence, it is indeed susceptible to idiomatic use as a rhetorical flourish, since it can hardly be agreed that the particular outcome put forth in the quotes means that terrorists have "won". bd2412 T 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added some additional citations in support of this rhetorical usage:
 * 2006, Judith Levine, Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping‎, p. 2.
 * Buy that flat-screen TV, our leaders commanded, or the terrorists will have won.
 * 2009, Andrea Cohen-Kiener, Claiming Earth As Common Ground: The Ecological Crisis Through the Lens of Faith‎, p. 17.
 * If we have to wear sweaters and turn down our thermostat, the terrorists will have won.
 * Delightful. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DCDuring and BD2412's cites. They've really outdone themselves! :-) &nsbp; —Ruakh TALK 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kept/RFV passed. —Ruakh TALK 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)