Talk:verbal assault

Idiomatic? DCDuring TALK 23:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to have a more specific meaning: . Are high school codes of conduct considered durably archived?  I assume they are still published in printed form in most places. -- Visviva 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not idiomatic or a set phrase (to me) so delete . Mglovesfun (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah but those don't all say the same thing; it's defined under the school's own rules. Since they don't support any single definition, I don't think they're usable anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There seemed to be a number that supported a definition along the lines of "speech that causes someone to fear physical assault." I have now added three cites that I think substantiate this use; there are a few others that might do if these do not.  This is definitely a sense that is scraping by on the edge of the language, outside perhaps of Michigan educational law, where a Supreme Court ruling has constrained most school districts to adopt a similar definition.  NB, there are also numerous references on b.g.c. to "verbal assault statutes", and numerous references on GNA to "verbal assault" being a "crime" (e.g. in England).  But on closer examination, these all seem to mean that assault is defined to include (all sorts of) verbal abuse, not that there is any specific notion of "verbal assault."  -- Visviva 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete These regulations are not usage, they're prescriptive definitions. Please write out the text of WT:CFI 100 times! —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 02:11 z 
 * &lt;sigh/> Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without making the implicit assumption that the person with whom you disagree is an idiot? At any rate, CFI is at least clear that the presence of a definition does not preclude a cite from counting as use, especially when the definition follows the use, as it does in the two Michigan cites that I have added to the entry.  The reason I linked to the definitions initially is simply to make clear what I was talking about.  You know, so that we could have a thoughtful discussion instead of yelling "keep" and "delete" at each other.  But since that seems to be all that's happening here, let me be the first to say: KEEP! ::eyeroll::
 * If you think CFI is wrong, that's fine; please help to build up a constructive BRD cycle at Editable CFI.  -- Visviva 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the definition "oral or written speech that creates, or is intended to create, a fear of physical harm", that is a specific disambiguation of the generic "verbal assault" in the sense of "verbal threat". Without this definition, I would read "verbal assault" as synonymous to "verbal insult" or name calling. So, at least I am unable to reliably deduce the specific meaning of "verbal assault" from "verbal" and "assault". Keep.
 * That said, this term is probably a borderline case, judging from its absence in most OneLook dictionaries: . --Dan Polansky 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as cited in legal and associated context. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been rewritten (every word, I think) so keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept, nice work Visviva. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)