Talk:textual harassment

Sum of parts, doesn't seem to be idiomatic or a set phrase. Move to WT:-)? --Connel MacKenzie 18:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tosh. Just deleted it. SemperBlotto 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Specific meaning of "text", so overall meaning is not apparent. Restored: DAVilla 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not apparent? It's a play on words of sexual harassment.  --Connel MacKenzie 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * which is exactly why it should be here - the meaning of the phrase textual harassment is dependant on knowing the meaning of sexual harassment. Additionally, in no other context does "textual" refer to text messaging. Thryduulf 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is in no way a set phrase, it is just a joke.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's apparent verbally, yes, but the meaning is not. It refers to text specifically in terms of messaging. DAVilla 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Therefore in a microscopically small context only; still only a joke. --Connel MacKenzie 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * erm, at least in the UK, text messaging is a massive context. Harassment by text message (particularly bullying by children) is also unfortunately also very significant. I don't understand to what your "microscopically small context" relates as it cannot be to either the meaning of this phrase or to either of its component parts, and it would be the height of ridiculousness to suggest you refer to spoken language in this manner. Thryduulf 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep 127 g.b.c. cites and scholarly articles, 75 at Scholar. Seems to be important in the realm of feminist-Foucaultian scholarship. DCDuring 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added two new senses, one of which is fully cited, and one of which does NOT have a meaning connected to sexual harassment, much to my surprise! This sense seems to be about harassing the text and not harassing someone by means of text. I have not found any g.b.c. support for the challenged text-messaging-specific sense, but that might be includable in the first of the new senses I have added. Presumably, then, unless fault is found with all three senses (certainly possible), the entry would stay. Procedurally, what should be done now? DCDuring 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept, discussion archived to Talk:textual harassment. -- Visviva 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

textual harassment
Specifically the sense meaning "harassment with text messages." Genuine usage in context is needed; Google News and Groups turn up a lot of mentions and headline-writer cleverness, but not much else. -- Visviva 03:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in Macmillan with quotes dating it all the way back to 2001: . Circeus 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one quote, which suffers from the same drawback as many others I found: "so-called textual harassment." I think there are implied quotation marks there, which makes this less than satisfactory. -- Visviva 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking at the Macmillan def. and the news snippets for this sense, I am convinced both that the sense is real and that we will not readily find clear and convincing attestation (yet) for the specific sense under challenge. I wonder whether we should just modernize or broaden the first sense to make it less tied to writing and more to, say, "any form of textual communication". DCDuring TALK 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good notion; the senses are somewhat distinct, but not unmergeable. -- Visviva 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a bad sign, in fact quite the opposite. Pawley's #20 states "Where there is a written tradition these may provide clues to perceived status as a unit. Quotation marks mayindicate unitary status: he was considered a ‘bad boy’. Orally, some speakers use so-called or a preceding pause to mark an equivalent to quote marks." DAVilla 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If in genuine use, this is definitely idiomatic. But while quotation marks may be a good sign for idiomaticity, in this case they also suggest that the author was not actually using the phrase, but merely suggesting that someone else does.  Which just isn't quite enough, IMO.  -- Visviva 16:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * V: Taking what you just said literally (and perhaps out of context), how would we then ever allow use in quoted dialogue from a non-fiction work in attestation? Are you saying that the quotation would have to provide enough context to show that the purported speaker was using the phrase meaningfully? DCDuring TALK 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if this were presented as a quotation, I think it could be presumed valid. What concerns me is the use of quotation marks (similarly to italics) to distance the author from a specific word or phrase.  I mean, we wouldn't accept something like this: I was suddenly afflicted by "hooblescooblemooblephobia," an irrational fear of self-rhyming words. ... would we? -- Visviva 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A word can be simultaneously used and mentioned. Sometimes it's more use-y ("I was suddenly afflicted by hooblescooblemooblephobia, which is a polite way of saying that self-rhyming words would now make me wet my pants. Pee-wee Herman and Bozo the Clown scared me almost as much as they had when I was seven." — there's a bit of mention, in that the word is commented on and loosely defined, but the main clause is using the word, not mentioning it, and it's not set off with quotes or a "so-called" or italics or anything), sometimes more mention-y ("I was suddenly afflicted by what the Crips call 'hooblescooblemooblephobia' and the Bloods call the 'heebie-jeebies'." — there's a bit of use, in that the writer doesn't explain what the word means and really is relying on the reader understanding the quoted words in order to understand the sentence, but it's framed as a mention). There are also other difficult cases, like when a word is genuinely used, but after defining it and due to having defined it, as here. The CFI do say that we accept use+mention quotes, but I think we can all agree they're not A-1. —Ruakh TALK 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed; sense removed.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do stupid obscure phrases always have three, four or five senses? We have a real overspecificity problem. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)