Jump to content

Talk:Bullying/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Removed "military" section

This part was so poorly written that it seemed like a better idea to just completely do away with it and hope someone comes in and adds a nicer ver.

Just a note, I've removed the link in the "see also" section to the Bully videogame being developed by Rockstar games. I really don't think a fictional RPG/action title has much (if anything) to do with bullying in the real world. The only reason I can think of it being there is to showcase the sensitivity of the issue of bullying by highlighting the attempts to have the videogame banned, but it seems pretty far off the track to me. Does everyone think removing it was ok?

I don't think it's a bad link. Think of it as "portrayals of bullying in popular culture." --Zippy 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. In many respects an article on bullying would not be complete without a talk on the portrayal of bullying in popular culture, I suspect. LinaMishima 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Victims, not bullies lack social skills and are often loners.

"Students who are victims of bullying are typically anxious, insecure, cautious, and suffer from low self-esteem, rarely defending themselves or retaliating when confronted by students who bully them. They may lack social skills and friends, and they are often socially isolated. Victims tend to be close to their parents and may have parents who can be described as overprotective."

The source is http://www.nldontheweb.org/Banks_1.htm


This above statement makes me mad. Bully victims are often high achievers and very clever making the bully feel inadequate and jealous. Also bully victims are often in the wrong place at the wrong time or have some vulnerability for example an employee has to stick at a job where he is being bullied because he has to pay off his mortgage and can't get another job. --Penbat 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think victims are forced into social situations that they find it difficult to deal with in the face of aggressive behaviour for example. You don't choose your school or workmates do you? Victims therefore take a background stance (avoidance). This stance is open to abuse by a bully to describe the victim as lacking social skills for example. Makes the victim stand out therefore open to abuse. Quite often given a choice of companions, a victim will do well in social settings. Other times a victim will be so used to being ignored or ostracised that he or she will avoid social situations altogether.

--82.34.227.77 Dixx 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Also old people, people with disabilities or women get targeted which are not attributes that they can do anything about. --Penbat 09:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The above statement is largely correct. However that behavior is, at least in my case and no doubt many others, a direct result of bullying, not the cause. Also, I would have to say that someone who inflicts pand and/or suffering upon others for amusment is seriosly lacking in social skils. 70.80.107.221 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, bullies are usually popular kids with many friends, while the victim is usually unpopular. So I would argue that the victim, not the bully, is the one who is insecure and lacks social skills. The fact that they may be intelligent and a higher achiever is irrelevent, because one can be very intelligent and still insecure. At least that's how it is in school. In adulthood things may be different. Edrigu 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is true. In school and other youth activities power is derived from ones social standing. Bullying is a abuse of power on a victim who lacks it. Somebody can still be sadistic while being a charismatic person with many friends. Slowcheetah 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange coincidence, this issue and discussion is just creeping into Workplace bullying too. My feeling is that both are true, that there are different kinds of differently motivated bullies, and thus different kinds of victims. One kind derives satisfaction by duelling with "loaded dice" and picks a weaker target where he CANNOT LOSE, another kind derives satisfaction from the challenge of the toughest target he can find, and maybe another kind again is drawn to the kind of victim who looks strong, but has underlying vulnerabilities that make him a soft target? After all serial killers and rapists (often just extreme forms of bullying, particularly rape, which is about imposing control) have various motivations and pick various types of victim, don't they? --Zeraeph 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't there a few POV statements here?

I think we have POV problems the last paragraph in the Locations of Bullying section: "Bullying in the military can occur when a superior misuses their power to get subordinates to do whatever they want including sexual favours. However the excuse for this sort of behaviour is that the military is not subject to normal civilian laws so they should be allowed to do what they want. This can lead to a high number of sucides [sic] and mysterious deaths of subordinates which are not investigated openly. Deepcut Barracks in the UK is one example of this where the UK government refuses to do a full public enquiry."

My main problems with this paragraph is the sweeping, unsupported comment about the acceptance of bullying in the military; it relies completely on generalization. Any idea on how to incorporate specifics into this paragraph, or should I just delete the part about "normal civilian laws"?

-Throbblefoot

I don't like the bit about "so they should be allowed to do what they want" but it is true that the military is not subject to normal civilian laws. - 67.172.124.99 07:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

-- I agree that there is POV in that bit. I'm changing the style but not the content. Rebekah Zinn 04:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better - thanks, Rebekah Zinn! -Throbblefoot 19:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted changes to the military section as they were capricious and uncited. I may disagree with what's here now, but the later version is no improvement. Thanks - Throbblefoot 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of bullying and how to stop it

Bullying is a form of aggression. Aggression has helped man fight predators and now agression is part of his genes. Bullying is fun because it lets you express your (agressive) genes. The way to stop bulling is by both by making the bully understand that he is acting like a caveman and by countering the fun he had bullying with a larger punishment. - fvdham

Bullying at work is a method of motivating others by short-cutting social or organisational rules of interpresonal equity. It might be used to make a person work harder, or to get them to leave, to cover up perceived or actual inadequacies in one's self or one's friends, to impress upon others that one is tough (and not to be challenged), or for little more than sadistic pleasure. It is akin to dictatorship. It can be justified by ignoring the facts of a persons merit, and by spreading and embellishing rumours about a person's shortcomings. A person who bullies would not describe their behaviour as bullying, and would have a potentially infinite number of plausible-sounding reasons to justify their actions.

It is near impossible for a target to stop bullying by asserting their right not to be bullied, particularly when the bully has the support of (or is) the employer. Exceptions to this truism include the conversion of Biblical character Saul. The only way to stop bullying in a workplace is for someone of higher authority than the bully to recognise the behaviour as misconduct, incompatible with the employer's objectives, and to deal with that misconduct by the same procedures as any other misconduct might be dealt with. -- Justdignity 22:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. Regular disciplining of a bully just causes them to change tactics-- and start again. Bullies are serial (compulsive) offenders and the only safe way to deal with them is to fire them.

People underestimate the destructive power (and cleverness) of many workplace bullies (especially social bullies, which can often be men, contrary to what is stated elsewhere on this page)-- sadly, it is not until a lawsuit threatens the economic survival of a company that people wake up to how much serious damage bullies actually do to a company.

And even then, the company will sometimes foolishly rally around the bully. That is how sophisticated some bullies are at social manipulation.

If you are in management and you see a sophisticated social bully operating below you-- cut them out of your organization like a cancerous tumor-- before it all goes to civil court.

--Sean7phil 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Phil

Whoops

I accidentally erased most of the article. Can someone revert it?

Bullying, is there an answer?

IS there?


Unclear

I deleted the following:

It is argued that without an antagonist figure that could be plausibly defeated (as opposed to a father bullying his child, who could never defeat him physically and would have a hard time to legally).

on the grounds that it is not a sentence and it is unclear what the writer was trying to express.

--Vorpalbla

huh?

Some refutations on alleged bullying. The whole section seems like total BS to me. Can anyone offer a reson why this section should be retained in the article?

I agree. I deleted it. While I believe that many cases of bullying may be overblown, and a few may even unfounded, the section was unscholarly at best. Its main points, that "being bullied is good for you" and "bullies are victims", certainly isn't mainstream. If someone has some references to cite on this, go ahead and add it. --A D Monroe III 09:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a second. "Getting a victim into trouble with authority" is bullying?

I don't think that "getting a victim into trouble with authority" is bullying. If someone has done something wrong, they asked to get into trouble. I think that getting bullies into trouble with authority is the only way to stop bullies. I think that "getting a victim into trouble with authority" should be removed from the list of bullying actions, since it is just and a possible way to STOP bullying.

I agree that reporting a bully to an authority is an effective and just way to stop bullying. However, I believe that reporting someone to an authority can be, in itself, a form of bullying sometimes. Realistically, everyone occasionally breaks the rules in every environment. Repeatedly reporting someone's minor infractions with the intention of harming the victim can be a form of bullying. For example, a bully could make a point of reporting a victim every time the victim whispers to a classmate, passes a note, doodles on a page, or surreptitiously chews gum. I'm not making the case that one should never report another to an authority, but it is certainly possible to bully someone in this manner. TomTheHand 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I question the assumption that the person being reported actually broke a rule. A bully can get an innocent person in trouble by pinning blame on him or reporting incidents that didn't happen. We certainly shouldn't remove the text, but perhaps it can be reworded to cover the points TomTheHand and I raise. Throbblefoot 19:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the second and third comments. Also, the article does state that it means the bully getting someone in trouble for an event either not committed at all, or exagerated by the bully. --Bear Eagleson 15:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The point being made is about false accusation (a common tactic used by bullies). It's not sating that someone who really does wrong should never be gotten in trouble.

--Sean7phil 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Phil

"Bullycide" rant

I'm aware that "bullycide" is a term used by the mainstream media to describe a suicide in reaction to bullying. I'm not suggesting that it be removed from the article, but I wanted to rant: "bullycide" is a stupid, stupid word. The prefix indicates who has been killed: therefore, bullycide is killing a bully. Again, just a rant. TomTheHand 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's the most elegant word, but what's your rationale in stating "the prefix indicates who has been killed?" Suicide means "death caused by oneself," homicide means "death caused by another," so why wouldn't bullycide mean "death caused by a bully?"

Also, "bullycide" does not mean "suicide in reaction to a bullying," but refers to all types of death caused by bullying -- including suicide, homicide, and accident. Rebekah Zinn 23:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The prefix refers to who has been killed, not who caused the death. Two examples: regicide means king-killing, and fratricide means brother-killing. Suicide means self-killing and homicide means person-killing (the most general of the terms). Use of the word "bullycide" to refer to a death caused by bullying, whether a suicide or a bully-perpetrated homicide, is silly. TomTheHand 01:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How about pesticide instead?  ;) At least it's a real word. "Bullycide" is a confusing neologism; it needs to go. --A D Monroe III 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that it needs to go. It seems to be a "real" word, actually used by the media and by "bullying experts." I feel it does belong in the article, but I just wanted to rant that these "bullying experts" probably didn't pay enough attention in English and/or Latin class ;-) TomTheHand 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll conceed that the word is ill-constructed. BTW, it was coined in the book "Bullycide: Death at Playtime," [1] which uses the term to describe suicide caused by bullying. When others started using the word, it's meaning expanded to include homicides and accidents caused by bullies. --Rebekah Zinn 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bullying & Employment Discrimination

Does anyone have a source to back up this statement: "Bullying is behind most claims of discrimination in the workplace." Most claims? Really? I've studied a bit of American employment discrimination law. In my observation, bullying is not a factor in a great deal of these claims, especially in the numerous failure-to-hire cases. Rebekah Zinn 23:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Benefits of Bullying

A few months ago, a woman (a sociologist, I believe. I can't think of her name off hand though) came on the Daily Show as one of Jon's guests stating that there were in fact, some benefits of bullying. She mainly argued that school based anti-bully initiatives would have the detrimental effect of not honing a child's competition skills. She pointed to one school district which banned the game of tag in favor of a new game called "Circle of Friends." Anyway, if anybody knows more about this, I think it could be a useful addition to the article.--Jsonitsac 06:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Upon further research I found her name was Christina Hoff Sommers--Jsonitsac 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Temporarily commenting out Ways to prevent/stop bullying and strategic methods.

On November 23, 2005, User:205.188.116.73 (an AOL proxy server IP) added a section on 'Ways to prevent/stop bullying and strategic methods.' The section needs major clean-up to its spelling and grammar, and lacks citation. As has been pointed out to me, it may be original research. Rather that delete the changes, I propose that the section be commented out until someone has the time to research and copy edit it. I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks, Throbblefoot 21:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read one of her books. I doubt she really supports true bullying. She is more interested in cutting through political correctness and reversing the damage done by politically correct overzeaousness.

She is politicially progressive but is leary of and challenging to progressive extremism.

--Sean7phil 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Phil

.

I have deleted the external link to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/work-bully-support as it is a rogue group. The original true group is at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/workbully-support/

The group "workbully-support" was founded in 2000 by Andy whose website http://www.workplacebullying.co.uk has a link to this group. He has been owner of this group for most of that time. However recently things got out of control and one of the five moderators, due to hypervigilance thought he was doing everyone a favour by deleting the group completely. He thought there was problem with the group administration that didnt exist. He deleted the group without permission or knowledge of the other four moderators or the group owner. He intended to immediately recreate the group with himself as the owner but Yahoo does not allow recreation of groups at short notice. He then started a new group with a similar name "work-bully-support" and made out that it was really just the old group implying that it had to be restarted afresh because of a technical reason.

Six years of posts were lost and I have now managed to recreate the original "workbully-support" group from scratch.

--Penbat 16:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

hi we am an owners from the so called "rogue" site. throughout david (penbat) slagging us off we have kept quiet not realising that he was removing or advising groups to drop our group. we are not a rogue group, the victims that come to us for help and support find a welcoming group of people who are caring and compassionate. please do what others have done and come to see for yourselves. thank you to the member from wikepedia who alerted us to the problem that penbat has with us. sue and fran

Nice try James. It is you who is the owner of the rogue group not Sue and Fran. Sue and Fran were moderators of the rogue group for a while but now they post in the official group almost on a daily basis. I notice that although the rogue group has 45 members no one has posted even once since early June. --Penbat 08:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

american culture

bullying is part of the american culture and that you can't deny. americans are taught to make fun and be agressive in the process, that is reflected everywhere including the humor, see things like encyclopedia dramatica or uncyclopedia or the way americans talk about foreigners. it's going to be pretty hard to fight bullying at schools if the bullies go home and see the whole nation, from the politicians and parents to the ones trying to be funny stepping on those they don't like and feeling good/having fun about it, attacking things that didn't do anything to deserve it instead of existing.

Removed unreferenced section

I have removed the following section, in the absence of any verifiable cites given for its contents:

The bully is generally a coward, or, at any rate, will typically be found to be behaving in a cowardly manner. Typically, the bully will only pick conflicts which he knows in advance he can win (where the victim is weaker than the bully; or the victim will be outnumbered by the bully and his pals; or the method used will avoid the victim being able to fight back). The bully avoids fair fights.

Although this is a comforting stereotype ("stand up to them, and they will crumble") is there any verifiable evidence available that supports this view? I have certainly encountered bullies who were not cowards. -- The Anome 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is becoming a polemic against bullying. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not an op-ed piece. According to its NPOV policy, Wikipedia should report points of view, rather than express them. (By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, I do think bullying is a bad thing.) -- The Anome 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Any idea that bullying is anything other than bad is simply a myth propogated by bullies to justify their actions. It doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. --Penbat 09:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I just expanded the section on workplace bullying, and I have endeavoured to write as aobjectively as possible. I recognise the need for neutrailty. My objective has been to inform an impartial observer with no previous knowledge of the subject. Just as with subjects like murder, it is impossible to describe the pros and cons. With murder, one must describe it as including the death of a person. With bullying, one must cite the action and its effects in order to educate a reader. The only people who would regard these as controversial are those who regard bullying behaviour as somehow creative and positive. Justdignity 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While I would never even attempt to suggest bullying is anything but a bad thing, Wikipedia really isn't the place for subjectivity, let alone hyperbole and zealotry, so I have toned it down in favor of greater objectivity.--Zeraeph 14:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I can just imaging Justdignity fuming and spitting blood with Zeraeph;s view who seems to think he is the ultimate guru on bullying.--Penbat 19:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't fume and spit blood over another's hyped expression of his subjective opinion. With the injection of emotionally charged accusations like "zealotry" , and the otherwise unresearched deletion of a whole passage (described as "toning down" LOL), one wonders if Z took an objective approach here. What beats me is that Z's link refers users to an equally subjective definition, albeit very much longer -- Justdignity 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Justdignity, I think the problem is really that you (and Penbat) don't yet understand the way Wikipedia works. I really would advise you to spend a little time on the tutorials and help pages, and even practice editing topics you have no strong feelings about.
Wikipedia is NOT a forum for expressing your opinions (or anybody else's), it is an Encyclopaedia that aims to present neutral information from reputable, cited and validated sources on as many topics as possible.
I feel certain that you could not show me valid sources for any of the text I removed.
I will say that am inclined to agree with you about the subjectivity of the Workplace bullying article. Perhaps, when you have a better grasp of Wikipedia Policy, we can all participate in correcting that error too? --Zeraeph 20:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Characteristic of Bullies Section

I have rewritten most of this as the original text was full of vague and inaccurate statements.--Penbat 10:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the original text was fairly concise and accurate, with sources cited, what you did was to rewrite it full of amateur diagnostic and unaccredited, uncited, unproven online pop psychology.
Please learn the difference between "vagueness" and "objectivity".
Wikipedia isn't a total free for all. "Original Research" is excluded. Which means that you cannot use your personal experiences or opinions, nor can you use anyone else's unless you can also show where it is published --Zeraeph 14:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for nothing Zeraeph. The material I wrote is based on personal experience plus years of research into the subject plus talking to hundreds of bully victims plus reading many books/websites in to the psychology of the subject. The things I wrote are based on far more than my personal experiences and opinions and include the psychological basis of bullying which has been overlooked. I could have easily expanded it to include citations and I also included links to other relevant sections of Wikipedia. What are your credentials Zeraeph, do you know more about bullying than I do ? I very much doubt it ? Yes the original had 1 source cited but not a very useful one. I had 6 links to other Wiki topics which are closely related to my text which themselves have citations. Have you read "Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality" by Elsa F. Ronningstam for example and covers the latest research ? --Penbat 17:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, if you did the research yourself, no matter how good it was, but cannot give a cite to it from an authoritative published source (such as a published paper written by someone else), it still counts as original research. On the other hand, you are entirely free to quote Else Ronningstam's views, citing them to her book. -- The Anome 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other text (for example School Bullying) on the Bullying Wiki is not supported by academic research so I am not sure why I am being picked on. My text is intended to be read in conjunction with the 6 linked Wiki topics which have their own cited references and incidentally a fair number of improvements could be made to those topics as well. I had only just finished polishing the text to the Characteristics of Bullies section a few days ago and if you really want me to cite some academic research then I will but give me a chance. What in particular do you want me to cite on ? Its no good throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I found some of the comments Zeraeph said about my text to be offensive and totally unnecessary. --Penbat 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Penbat, first place you are NOT being "picked on". If I had realised, at first, how very new you are to Wikipedia I would have been far gentler with you, for that misunderstanding I am sorry.
However Wikipedia Policy does not allow me an option on being gentler with your text. I will, however, be very interested to see the results of your editing when you do have citations and references ready, and if your citations and references are valid and relevant I will happily defend your text with my life.
If you see room for improvement in other articles I hope you will find the time to make those improvements, in strict accord with Wikipedia policy of course.--Zeraeph 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
All you needed to do was flag where you wanted to add citations and leave the text there for the time being. The School Bullying section has no citations so why dont you delete it all then ? I didnt put citations in because most of the other sections in this topic didnt so I didnt see why i needed to. Why did you suddenly automatically jump to the conclusion my text was all rubbish and I couldnt add citations to support it without even asking first ? I think the same point applies to Justdignities stuff as well. I still dont know at what points in my text you wanted citations. --Penbat 21:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am afraid that would not be an option, primarily because the text provided by yourself and Justdignity was presented in an extremelly subjective and emotive manner that is unsuited to an Encyclopaedia and does not accord with Wikipedia policy on a Neutral Point of View. Which meant it could could not have been allowed to remain in it's existing form under any circumstances.

I REALLY think you should read some of the help pages and get a better understanding of Wikipedia before you attempt to post any more.--Zeraeph 21:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, I would like YOU to show some respect for Wikipedia policy and, for a start, refrain from deleting material - specially when you don't have anything to replace it with. If I'm wrong, please put your objective, citation supported passage about workplace bullying online. I have refrained from reverting to the previous passage because you appear so passionate about YOUR version of objectivity (paradox apparent to me too) that I suspect you will just revert it on back. I have read some of the feedback on your page and I realise Penbat and I are not the only ones to have fallen foul of your personal crusade to uphold what you think is WIki policy. While I accept Wiki policy applies to me, please will you accept that it applies to you too. ---Justdignity 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I am afraid I replaced the totally unreferenced and inappropriate material with appropriate text from previous versions (not either my own text, or my own opinions, mildly transcribed and retaining the proper deletion of gender specific terminology) in the "Characteristic of Bullying" section, and replaced the unreferenced and inappropriate material in the (currently redundant) workplace section, initially, with a link to the far more extensive Workplace bullying article, and later, when I discovered that there was also a Cyber-bullying article with a brief excerpt and link.
I take it from your ID that you are in some way connected with http://www.justdignity.co.uk/ and http://www.humane-resources.co.uk/jd/html/about.html which has a commercial interest in this topic? Or am I wrong about that? If I am please correct me immediately.
You're right. But my contributions to Wiki were of course free of charge, and they were not even remotely marketing material for my company's B2B services To think otherwise is laughable. I was just giving the stuff away cos I was in a good mood. Sometimes its good to have the input of someone who makes a living from their knowledge of a subject. I expect if Einstein had contributed an article on Nuclear Physics, you'd have deleted it as unverified... Thanks to your coaching and input I am already very bored with Wiki. Although I have much to offer it, I fear that you will follow me around making sure that all my contributions are a waste of time, so why should I bother? Justdignity
Understand me, I refuse to accept you posting your subjective personal opinions as hard facts, or to the exclusion of alternative opinions. However, I would be only to delighted to see you subtantiate your opinions from reputable sources and include them, presented objectively, alongside the alternative, similarly substantiated, opinions of others.
You are increasingly tedious to deal with. My parting suggestion to you is that you open your mind to the fact [which you could verify to an extent by comparing this discussion with ones that you have not joined in with] that there are others who have at least as much to contribute to Wiki as you do, and possibly more. But you consider yourself a guardian of Wiki and you delete their posts, and you justify this by quoting from a set of basic rules whose spirit you have wholly failed to grasp. Objectivity - citing references - you're good at that part. Dealing with and understanding other people - you're trailing well behind the back of the field. I would welcome some guidance, but not in the manner you dish it out. You are ineffective as a Wiki guardian. You are putting off contributors. Your jobsworth manner was not part of the plan. For one moment STOP thinking about the shortcomings of others' contributions, and think about the shortcomings of your own. All mine needed was a few citations and references to put it right. The effect of yours is to totally bore and put off a new contributor. Try putting that right. Start moderating yourself. Absorb the underlying message of the feedback on your talk page - if you can see it, that is. -Justdignity
I also think that it would be far better, for everyone, if you restricted yourself to contributing any information you have on this topic from verifiable and reputable sources and refrained from using Wikipedia as a venue for it's practical application. --Zeraeph 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yawn - JD
PS. Justdignity - While you are here, if you COULD just find time to pop to the bottom of the page and express your opinion on merging Workplace bullying into this article? It works like a kind of poll, so that whatever opinion you express will affect the eventual outcome - perhaps you could get Penbat to do the same? Thank You--Zeraeph 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Your patronising sarcasm does not motivate me to carry out your instructions, but the opposite. In any case I would rather leave it to the people who are going to contribute to the new article. -Justdignity
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, as long as you desist from posting them without valid references or citations of recognised sources in the main namespace. Assuming, of course, that you can find valid references or citations beyond your own opinions and agenda?
Well, can you?
Because unless you can, you really do not have anything worthwhile to contribute here at all. --Zeraeph 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This section needs more on a class of adult bullies that are extremely good social manipulators. Many adult bullies have years of experience and are very good at what they do.

This webpage is a good start-- but more is needed here in this specific area (sophisticated and extremely destructive tactics of adult social bullies). --Sean7phil 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Phil

Workplace bullying section

This is crying out for a decent write up. --Penbat 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a lot better now but needs to tie up in some way to the separate Workplace Bullying Wiki entry. --Penbat 09:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Penbat - I have inserted info on "workplace" into the bullying section - Justdignity.

This webpage is to be complimented but more work needs to be done in this section here.

The workplace bullying section needs to be hugely expanded.

I'd like to call for people who are experts in workplace bullying to contribute generously here (I'm not such an expert but I am a surviver of serious social bullying and have learned the hard way that this is a major problem and that adult social bullies can be formidable and very sophisticated operators).

Best and thanks for the good start here.

--Sean7phil 18:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Phil

Phil, you DO know that there is a seperate Workplace bullying article? That's why it really wouldn't be a great idea to expand the section here UNLESS the two articles are merged, which is an option worth discussing though I confess I can't make up my mind about it, I just think it's an option worth talking about.

Also, trust me, you DON'T need to be an expert to participate, you just need to be able to stay objective and neutral, refrain from personal opinion and experience (which are valid in their own right, but inappropriate here) and able to locate and cite reputable, mainstream published, sources for all the information you post. Copying this to your talk page too --Zeraeph 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reponse Zeraeph! I can see your point. It might be nice to merge them, but if not, perhaps a link from your smaller workplace bullying section to the other one would suffice (so people who need help can find it).


    • (And I will come back and cite my sources later-- I promise).


Thanks also for the encouragement-- I am learning more everyday as well -- a large percentage of bullies (not all) are sociopaths, which are very charming manipulative people who often are big time social game players. While the stereotype that sociopaths are violent usually isn't accurate-- it apparently is true that sociopaths are incapable of feeling compassion for others. And not only that-- they are often socially predatory and get a thrill out of socially attacking/psychologically damaging others.

    • The incidence of sociopaths is actually much higher than once thought-- approx. 1 in 25 people!! Chilling! Most are non-violent, but most are also clever and enjoy social power games-- hurting and exploiting others. And they feel no remorse (they can't-- it does not exist for them, nor can they feel love or shame). They also tend to be charismatic (although far more charismatics are not sociopaths than are).

A lot of the more sophisticated adult bullies may in fact be sociopaths. Who by the way are often very successful in business!

Just think-- there are so many of these people (4 percent of the population) that we pass them every day in our cars!

    • The majority will never break a law (not because they feel any guilt but because they don't want to go to jail). Although they can do much damage in other ways.

I just saw a book listed called The Socipath Next Door-- I can't reccomend it it however as I haven't read it yet.

Apparently also, sociopaths are usually not the quiet sneaky types that you would think they are-- they are often big time power players and bullies-- and they get a thrill out of abusing others (they can feel sadistic pleasure).

--71.215.72.138 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Sean7phil Phil

Hi Phil, glad to have encouraged you, and you are quite right, the section should be immediately tied to the Workplace bullying article, I am surprised it was not.
On sociopaths, you might find Psychopathy interesting. I will be very interested indeed if you can come up with a valid, academic source that ties bullying to psychopathy. Personally I do not know of one. --Zeraeph 10:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed"

That makes sense. I don't accept bullying. I know how it feels being bullied in school. I've felt that I'm still in school & still bullied. (I'm 35 now) Chris 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


What are you referring to when you say "That makes sense"? --Penbat 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It has to be nearly impossible to keep such a topic emotionally neutral, doesn't it? I can understand where some users make negative comments about bullying. Chris 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullying is a common manifestation of abuse. In the same way as child abuse or physical assault cannot be a good thing, neither can bullying be a good thing. --Penbat 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In this context, neutrality is not about whether bullying is right or wrong. It is about presenting a wide spectrum of accredited information and hypotheses on the nature and effects of bullying, even when hypotheses directly contradict each other.
A Wikipedia article is not an essay, it does not aim to make a point, beginning with an argument and ending with a conclusion. A Wikipedia article just communicates (ideally without the slightest attempt to manipulate) the available information as comprehensively as possible, even when branches of that information contradict each other. --Zeraeph 11:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people love bullies. Many adult (social) bullies are somewhat charismatic and rely on mobs of 'followers' to do their dirty work for them. There are plenty of people with anger and other issues who latch on as followers of the bully so they can vent their aggressions on the bully's target.

These people often admire bullies and even view them as heroes.

--Sean7phil 18:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Phil

School Bullying section

Generally it is quite good but the last paragraph was mainly nonsense so I deleted it. Much of the ground in that paragraph I had covered in the Characterists of Bullies section anyway. --Penbat 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

by teachers

I cut the following paragraph (diff). It made a sudden switch from bullying by school peers (a commonly acknowledged form of bullying) to bullying by school authorities, notably teachers. I'm not sure it belongs under Bully at all -- it really seems personal rant, and wanders from the topic -- but since it survived more than a month without being cut, I want more eyes to review it for potential salvage.

Bullying in schools (or other institutions of higher education) may also take the form of reduced grading, non-return of assignments, segregation of competent students by incompetent/non-performing teachers, for example, to protect the reputation of a college. This is so that their programmes and internal code of conduct are never questioned, and that parents (usually the ones paying the fees), are made to believe that their children are unable to cope with the course. Typically, these attitudes serve to create the unwritten policy of 'if you're stupid, you don't deserve feedback. if you're good, you don't need it.' Frequently, such institutions (usually in Asian countries) run a franchise programme with foreign (usually Western) institutions with the clause that foreign partners have no say in local grading or codes of conduct of staff involved on the local end. It serves to create a class of 'educated fools', people with degrees who have not learned to adapt to situations and create solutions by asking the right questions and solving problems.

edgarde 04:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Workplace bullying

Workplace bullying has it's own extensive article. It does not need duplicating here, unless you would like to merge the two articles?

I have removed all exclusively Workplace related links, I suggest you check that they also exist on the Workplace bullying.

There are other forms of bullying just as valid, important and deserving of being presented here in detail, there is no need to drown that information out with just one aspect of bullying that already has a seperate article.

Wikipedia ia NOT the place for tub bashing or otherwise promoting your own favorite agenda, business sub-topic, or POV, it is simply an encyclopaedia for communicating information as objectively and impartially as possible. Please respect that. --Zeraeph 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Within the context of this one Wiki on bullying in general, Workplace bullying was given about as much prominence as School Bullying. Yes it make sense to merge the two as I think the author of the new text on the Workplace bulling was not aware of the separate WB Wiki. I have no idea what your last paragraoh relates to. --Penbat 18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the core principles of Wikipedia is sustaining a neutral point of view, you were not doing this, you were promoting your own totally unsubstantiated, unreferenced ideas as fact. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that in general, but not on Wikipedia where everything presented must be referenced to reputable sources.
I suggest you study the Wikipedia Tutorials and help pages for a better understanding of how Wikipedia works before making further changes
As far as the merging is concerned, I see no reason why these two articles should not be tagged for discussion with a view to merging and am now doing so.
Incidentally it is customary to use a colon to indent your text to make individual comments clearer --Zeraeph 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph

You have just muscled in and reinstated the old text for Characteristic of Bullying section without even responding to all the comments I have made on that section further up in this discuision tab. I am incensed at your second paragraph in particular in the Characteristic of Bullying. Where are the citations for it ? Have you seen the lastest research ? Yes for sure it is true that your implication that people with Borderline Personality Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder bully but that is a diversion - it is people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Psychopathic Personality Disorder who are the main culprits. You have completely ignored any kind of psychological analysis of bullying and linking it to mobbing etc etc. Your text is fundamentally flawed and inaccurate. I still dont know what your credentials are for claiming to be the ultimate bully guru on the planet. You are acting without explaining why in this discussion tab or addressing concerns or points already made in the discussion tab. You are acting like Mr Hitler and I can see I am completely wasting my time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by penbat (talk • contribs) .

Penbat, you are totally ignoring Wikipedia Policy and every attempt made to explain it to you.
I am simply restoring old text (any transcription relates only to grammer and syntax), which does have references attached, within the text. You are attempting to innovate without providing references at all. This is against Wikipedia Policy.
I will be only too interested to view any sources you care to show, but you haven't shown any yet.
I don't understand what on earth you are attributing to me in terms of reference to personality Disorders as I didn't mention any.
Incidentally, there is, in fact, NO SUCH THING as "Psychopathic Personality Disorder" at all. "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" is almost universally regarded as largely environmental in origin.
Perhaps you could show me where I have stated that I am "the ultimate bully guru on the planet"? I don't recall making that statement and I cannot find any trace of it --Zeraeph 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

All you needed to do was flag where you wanted to add citations and leave the text there for the time being. The School Bullying section has no citations so why dont you delete it all then ? I didnt put citations in because most of the other sections in this topic didnt so I didnt see why i needed to. Why did you suddenly automatically jump to the conclusion my text was all rubbish and I couldnt add citations to support it without even asking first ? I think the same point applies to Justdignities stuff as well. I still dont know at what points in my text you wanted citations.--Penbat 21:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well i have just found 13,700 references in Google to "Psychopathic Personality Disorder" including some references in Wikipedia so put that it your pipe and smoke it !! --Penbat 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid those search results are not valid references (as search results are often not in the internet world of "self appointment to online pseudo-expertise) as "Psychopathic Personality Disorder" does not exist in either the DSM or the ICD, therefore it is no more than a misguided pop psych label with no real existance in the world of Professional Psychiatry and Psychology.
The text provided by yourself and Justdignity was presented in an extremelly subjective and emotive manner that is unsuited to an Encyclopaedia and does not accord with Wikipedia policy on a Neutral Point of View. Which meant it could could not have been allowed to remain in it's existing form under any circumstances.
If there were a seperate section on School Bullying I would have been delighted to delete that section and leave a link as well.
I do not quite understand what prevents you from resolving the whole matter now by producing valid, academic citations and references for your assertations?
I REALLY think you should read some of the help pages and get a better understanding of Wikipedia before you attempt to post any more.--Zeraeph 21:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is only very recently that supportive research has been done to show a genetic factor for NPD. This also applies to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. A genetic factor also makes logical sense. --Penbat 21:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a "genetic factor" in almost every aspect of who we are...one genetic factor does not a genetic disorder make!--Zeraeph 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You have succeded in completely demotivating me and Justdiginity who are probably two of the best qualified people around to write about Bullying. I am fed up of having my article referred to as subjective. I am also fed up of you picking holes and making a big thing of it. I was intending to reread the text on genetic factors in Elsa F. Ronningstam's book and it is far from insignificant but now I cant be arsed - you can check it yourself. Frankly I think you will have a big problem finding anyone else with the insight on bullying that us two have. The text on narcissism, psychopathy, APD and NPD needs revision as well.
I dont see the relevance to whether School bullying is a separate topic or not makes any difference at all to whether the text is acceptable without any citations. --Penbat 22:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? I would be very interested to know what your peerless academic qualifications in this field actually are?

The "School Bullying" text has stood for a long time without challenge, you were innovating, the "School Bullying" text takes a neutral point of view and frequently refers to well established facts, your text was biased, subjective and refered to nothing but your own (not widely held) opinions.

There is an old expression "self praise is no praise at all". I do not see any insight at all.--Zeraeph 22:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what's all the bullying going on here? What exactly is the complaint, who is complaining, and what else is interesting? Looks like some ego slapping going around. We're all intelligent and civil people so I'm sure we can work this out. Is the School Bullying section the problem? --DanielCD 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Bullying is a very informal term, so references and links to the disorders that might be associated with it should work. It's not a scientific or clinical term in itself though. It crosses over into the literary realm, such as Little Rascals type stuff. It's almost an archetype of sorts. Is the quibbling over scientific/clinical definitions? If so, that's really going to be subjective. --DanielCD 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact... If anyone could find a PD pic of the bully from the Little Rascals that might make a great addition here! What was the kid's name... Butch? --DanielCD 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Defining the Problem

And taking this opportunity to break up the section for ease of use!

From my point of view, here is the problem:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bully&diff=50718594&oldid=50000528

A couple of people, who are very new to Wikipedia, made sweeping edits that replaced, admittedly incomplete, but fairly valid, information, with unsubstantiated personal opinion, presented as fact, in very subjective terms. Of course there is nothing wrong with unsubstantiated personal opinion, in it's proper place, but not here, and I seem to be making a total Pig's Ear of explaining to them how and why that is.

On closer examination, I realise the whole article has much room for improvement, but, objectively, substantiated, and in accordance with Wikipedia Policy, not personal opinion or agenda.

I don't think they really understand yet that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to "make their case" AT ALL, let alone "make their case" based only on personal experience and opinion.

I think bullying has many aspects, as both an informal term, AND a serious subject, and all aspects should be covered properly. Perhaps the more formal subject of "Bullying" should have it's own article and the term "Bully" should be covered more generally and informally? Or the Bully article, as it stands, should cover the general and informal aspects while specific types of bullying should be covered, to the extent they deserve, in seperate articles? --Zeraeph 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that there are not serious aspects to bullying, as of course there are serious aspects. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, it's causes can be various, so pinning it to any specific psychiatric diagnosis wouldn't really be appropriate. But I;m just offering an opinion as I am not deeply into this material right now. Take my comments with a grain of salt. --DanielCD 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure it will ever be appropriate to pin bullying to any specific diagnosis, at any rate, not until professional psychiatry gets there first. ;o) Seems to me the causes can be various too.
As far as I can tell, "bullying" has become something of a minor league internet "buzz word" in recent years, which tends to mean that, in the course of a lot of discussion about it, a lot of personal opinion and misinformation gets slung around as hard fact.--Zeraeph 09:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did some serious digging today (not that you'd notice on the namespace!). There are acres of reputable academic and/or government sponsored references. There even seem to two distinct academic branches of research, America tends to focus on emotional abuse and mistreatment effects and the victim, Europe tends to focus on mobbing and bullying causation and the perpetrator.
Speaking of causation, various? Do you want fries with that? ;o)
A lot of different factors have been identified through cold, hard, academic research, and, so far, not a personality disorder among 'em.
Bullying is a complex subject.
I can see why it might be a lot easier for someone to say to themself "Hey, I was bullied for years, which wealth of experience has to make me an expert, so let my personal experience define bullying, not only for me, but for anyone else I can persuade to identify with me."
I can also see why someone else, in such a harrowing position, might grasp frantically for, and hold fast to, the first thing they can begin to identify with.
But while every individual's experience is a valid part of the whole picture, it is only a tiny, brushstroke of a part that does not define the whole subject, or even come close. Any attempt to use an individuals experience to define the whole subject is bound to ultimately exclude the majority of those adversely affected by it, leaving them with a choice as to whether to edit their own reality to fit the subjective definition, or remain out in the cold, alienated, and alone.
That is why we need disciplined academics to research, objectively, under controlled conditions so that they can report the WHOLE picture back to us.
I believe that a Wikipedia Article should, ideally, aim to be be a thumbnail of that whole picture.
--Zeraeph 16:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Workplace bullying

Please state your opinion on whether or not the Workplace bullying article should be merged here?--Zeraeph 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • UNSURE: I can see good reasons for merging the article, but, if all aspects of bullying are to be given the attention and explanation they deserve, a single article would become far too long and unwieldy and would have to be broken down anyway.--Zeraeph 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • NOT: Changed my mind, after digging for facts, this really is such a large and complex topic that merging will create an article that is far too big--Zeraeph 19:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Since so much time in life is spent at work, it makes sense that a kind of relation at work would be complex enough to justify its own article. Don't merge it. --DarkAdonis255 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging et al.

Merging ======= I think the page should be merged with workplace bullying. Also I think that there should be some structure to the page and Workplace Bullying should be a sub heading. There is so much similarity between Mobbing, and Bullying that we ought to be thinking about pseudonyms. Bullying, AKA Mobbing for example.

I disagree - mobbing is not a pseudonym for bullying. Bullying is one individual engaging in hostile activity toward another. Mobbing is when the bully involves a group in his attacks. Slandering the target to co-workers and management, for example. Coercing others to join in the bullying creates the toxic GROUP dynamic known as mobbing. This distinction has become blurred enough, don't add to the confusion. - webmaster mobbing.ca (http://mobbing.ca)

Military Section ================ As far as the removal of the military section goes, then I see this as workplace bullying with the introduction of the malicious use of rank and corporal punishment by the perpetrator. I am a bit miffed as to why this section was removed when several attempts had been made recently to improve it.

KISS ==== Like other pages, this one needs to be succinct and contain links.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dixx (talk • contribs) .

Dixx, how would you feel about also simplifying and merging cyber-bullying?
Incidentally, I am a bit puzzled by the removal of the Military Section too?

:Dixx added - IMHO Cyber Bullying is bullying using a delivery tool. The deletion of the section on military bullying was a serious ommission. Incidentally, also IMHO military bullies have an array of tools similar to workplace bullies, rank (promotion prospects, demotion opportunities, recourse to bigger bullies etc) also a range of punishments, from field punshments to right the way up to summary execution etc.

I don't think mobbing and bullying are the same thing, but I can see how mobbing could be considered a subsection of Bullying? Might take out a lot of duplication between the articles? --Zeraeph 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The scientific discussion I know is that there some authors see I difference between bullying and mobbing and others don't. The problem is that the term mobbing was used by Konrad Lorenz for animal behaviour. In Sweden the term mobbing (or mobbning) was taken up and used for human behavior first. Then the concept of mobbing was expanded by Swedish everyday language for negative behaviour by one against others. Later when the concept was internationalised, some researchers refered to mobbing as mobbing. Others who think that the term mobbing is cumbersome use mobbing (especially in English speaking Europe). In Ireland and UK, the term bullying refers even to a generally autoritarian leadership style, what is not usually considered as mobbing on the European continent. Due to the history of the terms bullying and mobbing, it's difficult to grasp the demarcation of each term. --Sampi/€ 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Btw, mobbing usually refers to workplace bullying (sometimes to childhood bullying). Merging mobbing with workplace bullying would be better, although it would cause some problems. Merging the parts of workplace mobbing with workplace bullying should work. Merging bullying and workplace bullying is probably not the best idea because the articles are too long. --Sampi/€ 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Bullies?

Gretchen Grundler seemed quite friendly. the biggest bullies on Third Street School's playground are: Spinelli; Erwin Lawson; Gelman; King Bob; Clyde; & the Kowalski Brothers Chris 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a clue, same way I don't have a clue about most of thos characters...I keep wondering if the list maybe ought to be pared down to the well known ones ANYBODY would recognise, because it's so long and really dominates the article? Thoughts? --Zeraeph 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's cool with me, Zeraeph. Perhaps someone put her name on the "Fictional Bullies" list as a joke. Chris 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Recess (1997) is a cartoon show on TV (1997-2001). I haven't seen it, but there is character called "Gretchen Grundler". The contribution seems to be no fake. --Sampi/€ 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've seen Recess. I've never seen Gretchen bullying other kids. Chris 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest the inclusion of Lucy from the Charlie Brown comic strips. Or is there a difference between being bossy and being a bully? The football thing seems to qualify her for me. I question the inclusion of Mike TeeVee and Violent Beauregard from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I read the books and saw the Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka movie and remember general brattiness but not bullying. This is an interesting discussion. I'm going to ponder and come back hopefully with some input on the other sections in this article. CClio333 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am copying this discussion to Talk: List of fictional bullies--Zeraeph 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove "Professionally added propaganda"

Well all I can say is WHOOPS!!

Whoever you are 202.89.186.175 I certainly never meant it to sound that way (I broke up a "run on" sentence and forgot that "cut the cord" to "Some people..." at the beginning of the paragraph) and I MUCH prefer your edit...thanks for catching it!--Zeraeph 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (a temporary "Accidental Colonal Blimp" *DEEP SHAME*)

Bullycide

I agree with the above commenter about this coinage being awkward. Not only that but I keep seeing the topic recurring as one of the only forms of death that happens as a result of bullying. It doesn't take into consideration all the murders committed at the hands of students and peers from what I can tell, only the suicides caused by teasing. I realize that such murders would be murders and not mere bullying but there doesn't seem to be a suitable word or reference to the topic since bullying can escalate into homicide by peers.

The bullycide article could probably make use of the bullycide miscoinage. As for children killing children, is there a proper term like -cide. http://www.fun-with-words.com/cide_words.html didn't list anything useful. Homicide is pretty general. Parvulus (child but not sure the usage or context) + cide could be parvulicide. But peer would be a better word (albeit I can't find any Latin for it) than child as adults can be bullied of course as well and this captures it a bit more accurately.

Anyhow, I know this isn't a place to promote a new theory or coinage but I think some more dealing with that possibility in the topic would be in order.

(By the way, I'm new to mediawiki so forgive my lack of formatting expertise, still on the bottom of the learning curve).

Johngagon 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Types of Bullying

I wonder if the types of bullying section could be improved by adding actual cases of bullying as examples.Rich 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tricky...because all you could use and be NPOV would be summaries of transcripts (personal experience would be "original research"), properly cited and I don't see how you could include enough detail to make it valid without the article growing to immense proportions? --Zeraeph 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Although it may seem like a good idea, we would have problems prevening no original research being used. I personaly don't think that NPOV would be an issue as long as the examples are given without commentary (which would again mostly be POV). The biggest problem is that individual bullying episodes tend to be poorly documented, more normally only coming to light after the bullying has become connstant and no one episode is then detailed. I'd like to say that I'm rather happy bullying has been included under articles relating to abuse, that made me happy :) LinaMishima 12:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about that. How about then, scenes from movies or novels and plays?Rich 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Definately, however at that point it's not examples of bullying, but examples of the portrayal of bullying. That might infact be a big enough topic to warrant it's own article.... LinaMishima 12:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

There is a lot of good material in this Bully topic. However some things can be improved upon. I would be more than happy to engage in constructive input on Bullying and related topic such as NPD, and talk it through with you all. I believe I have an excellent insight into Bullying. My involvement is conditional on absolutely no future involvement from Zeraeph.

--Penbat 11:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue: Photos/Artwork for Bullying

There is a MAJOR problem in the use of photos/artwork. How, exactly, does one "portray" bullying? Search for representations, and all you find is photos of big mean looking boys physically intimidating little fearful looking boys. This is a very limiting and selective in scope of the topic. Plus, it is very POV, that a bully needs to be big, obviously mean-looking and physically agressive, and that victims are small, fearful-looking and helpless.

What else could possibly suffice? I did find ONE GREAT graphic that applied ONLY to childhood bullying, but to be useful (to see all that is written on it) it would be much larger than is feasible or workable - plus there would be tracking down ownership and permission to use).

If there is room for ANY photos, it would be for the most distinguished people in the field -- and that would be a photo of author, advocate and lecturer Tim Fields, recently deceased. He accumulated and utilized a great amount of journal research to substantiate his work.

Comments? - I am Kiwi 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be missing an even greater concern - that of ethics! We have to be careful to use images were all those featured are consenting. Possibly our best sources could be from bullying awareness groups, who produce documentary material. I'm sure they will be willing to GDFL an image from such a thing for us. LinaMishima 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


It will be wonderful if you can get the necessary permissions!!! All you have to do is Google Bullying and Bully. My favorite boy bullying art was one described as "royalty free") from Fotosearch.com -- It depicts one large boy holding the other up in the air. To me it depicts the concepts of bullying much better than what seems to be two little boys duking it out.
There is one wonderful line drawing of a group of girls gossiping and laughing at another girl who is obviously feeling excluded. But the website is in Spanish and I wasn't even able to find any contact address, but someone who can translate (or read) Spanish could possibly receive permission. - I am Kiwi 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Lina, I apologize. I find that I read your post too quickly and missed the true gist of your comments.
The first real stalling point we have is artwork is virtually always of little boys with fists in action. Physical bullying is obviously most easily depicted in artwork -- but it is a highly limited notion of bullying and most limited to school-aged boys. And, as I've said, I would prefer to see childhood bullying have its own topic page.
How do you depict bullying between neighbors. Through a comic strip, perhaps, where a story can be told. How do you depict a woman being shut out of a neighborhood or church clique? How do you depict all the ways of bullying?
The only photo I can conceive of would be of Tim. There is no way to match him. I am certain his widow would give permission for his photo to be on Workplace Bullying. I would hope she would consider this topic, also, for he has done far more than anyone to heighten an awareness of the social and economic impact of bullying.
As for using material from bullying awareness groups, again it is all geared to childhood bullying, thus highly limited for a general bullying topic. I would be a bit cautious about using artwork that is strongly identified with a group, like the symbol they use, which is rather like their trademark? Using something like that might indicate giving some sort of preferential recognition of them? I think it is something to be discussed, though. Perhaps I am wrong about that.
Perhaps the person finding possible artwork or graphics chould post links to them here, so everyone can look at them and provide feedback. I will find the three I like and post those next.
But again, I will encourage you (or anyone) to feel free to track down artwork and secure permissions if needed. You can upload a photo, tell what you know about its copyright, give the webpage it was found on, and Wiki will make a determination on it, letting you know whether it can be used. I know this for I've had my first one approved and just linked it to the article page I found it for. -I am Kiwi 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


LINKS TO PICTURES !!

[2] also here - [3] things going for this one - * Yes, it's kids, boys, but there is no physical violence, no signs of violence * The issue of control, intimidation and desire to humiliate is depicted Need to find out from Wiki about whether this one falls under FairUseIn


[4] also here - [5] * Only bullying situation depicting girls * Shows typical female pattern bullying I want to get permission for this. Who can read Spanish? Would you please write them and ask.


http://www.asohalton.org/Bullying.gif Now this one is great - but it is too large.. and I think if were shrunk sufficiently, you could no longer read what is written


[6] Now I just found this Australian website - the person bullied is physically handicapped, but the meaning of all the pictures is so tremendously clear. Yes, children are in the drawings, but this type of bullying transcends, in spirit, age. I could see using this series to good effect on a general bullying page. I want to get permission for these. I want them so bad, I will write them myself.


[7] This is at least unique. What do you think? I find it a bit small


[8] also here [9] Why is it that foreign countries do better at bullying art? But the outcast here is so far away, the picture so small, it may be too hard to interpret? What do you guys think?

More later! - Kiwi


argh, stop! I'm guessing you used something like google image search to find those, which really was not a good idea. Most images out there are not licenced compatably with the GFDL, and if a GFDL-compatable illustration can be aquired, no fair use claims can be made. As such, it is strongly recommended that you never use an image search without restricting results to those under the GFDL or CC-atribution licence. Although some people may be willing to grant us permission to use the image, it must be under a GFDL-compatable licence, and we should never send frivolous requests.
Contrary to what you say, I know there are anti-bullying campaigns targeting workplace bullying (in the UK, at least). Our best bet to get high quality images without making them ourselves would be to work with these groups and send them formal requests for help in detailing the issue, by asking for stills from documentaries and the such they have done, depicting bullying.
That brings me to my next idea - we could do far worse than asking on the requested images page for a group to set up a shot depicting workplace bullying, shunning, etc. That's what the community is for.
Now, counter to your claims about there is no photographs of real bullying, you may wish to look up such things as happy slapping. This is a real and growing problem, and has been in the news. LinaMishima 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Lina!!!! I am SO ignorant (more so than I even dreamed!!!). I am such a rank amateur here at Wiki. I have zip knowledge of all the things you are talking about. I defer to you regarding all these terms and places other than Google. My stupidities are legion. *sigh*
I just got to trying to help, not knowing (I realize now) just how long that message has been up, saying graphics were needed. Obviously there are people eminently more qualified to address this whole issue. I am excited and looknig forward to what you come up with!!
Now I am concerned that my posts today may have seemed awfully presumptious, coming out of the blue. I was just brainstorming and have no intention trying to railroad anyone into going along with my ideas, just because I have them. -I am Kiwi 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue: Topic Title is Poor Choice

I am not certain who created this topic with the title of Bully, rather than Bullying, but it is way past time to get this topic moved to the other page.

Here is what I have to substantiate my thought processes

  • The TOPIC is bullying rather than a focus on only one side of what is a 2-part (or multi-part) dynamic. What? should there be a separate topic for "Victims of Bullies"? Of course not. It would be like having two topics for Rape - Rapist and Rape Victim.
  • The ABUSE CATAGORY topic-linking box at the top of the page does not specify Bully (a noun describing the perpetrator/instigator in the dynamic -or- a verb to describe certain types of abusive behavior with a particular specific goal)

Instead, the ABUSE CATEGORY topic-linking box DOES specifies Bullying (a noun naming the FORM OF ABUSE dealt with or a verb denoting the ACT/ACTIONS of this type of abuse, ie Bullying)

  • The word Bully is linked, at the top of the page, to the disambiguation page for Bully (disambiguation). If the topic were (correctly) Bullying, there would be no ambiguity about what the topic is.

Currently, if you click on Bullying it brings you to this page without a halt. The disambiguation page would, of course, contine to link to this topic, as before.

It is my opinion that the Bully (disambiguation) needs to be the primary bully page, and this entire Topic moved, in toto, to the currently unused Bullying pages.

Comments? - I am Kiwi 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree --Penbat 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving request made - see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#28_September_2006 --Penbat 20:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Move completed. There are a lot of articles linking to the page Bully, which is now a redirect. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Good work, Penbat. I didn't know anything about how to accomplish a move to a new page/name. Thanks Bacchus -I am Kiwi 00:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bullying/Archive_1&oldid=399240947"