Talk:Sticks and Stones

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a quotation it would be nice to know where and by whom and on which page it was published. BTW: Here someone claims to have found it in an American periodical ("The Christian Recorder") from March 1862. --87.149.43.171 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common Law

This sentiment is reflected in/reflects the common law of civil assault, which holds that mere name-calling does not give rise to a cause of action, while putting someone in fear of physical violence does.

I suggest this sentence is deleted. I am not a lawyer but would point to the notion of verbal assault, which has a view to how the force of delivery of the words is perceived, aand of course to libel and slander which concerns name calling more directly. LookingGlass (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the sentence be deleted? Hyacinth (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it with the citation needed template. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 19:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– This article is clearly the primary topic of "sticks and stones". All other uses of the term is derived from the topic of this article. ssт✈^(discuss) 13:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral would be nice to see some evidence. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has higher long-term significance than any topic derived from this. sst✈^(discuss) 04:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It is clear that in many instances of the phrase being used in the title of other topics, it was derived from the nursery rhyme. Also, Google search results with the search criteria "sticks and stones" "break my bones" significantly outnumbers a search for "sticks and stones" -bones (where hits with the word bones does not turn up in the results). Furthermore, a look at article traffic and incoming wikilinks per the criteria outlined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supports for the move. The nursery rhyme article has more page views and incoming wikilinks than any other topic listed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 16 December 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. No further edits should be made to this section.