Talk:Bullying/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Recent image added

I feel that the recent image added here is inappropriate for this page. I would remove it but the page is protected. The reason I don't like it is because the cameras are almost certainly not there to prevent bullying. The cameras are most likely there to catch kids ditching, to act as a witness to traffic accidents, to catch careless drivers, etc. I hardly doubt they are meant for bully prevention. 80.237.132.153 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. --MW talk contribs 16:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case if the cameras were only in the parking lot, but I'm assuming they're in the buildings and elsewhere on campus as well since Charlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida) is under the same district as Port Charlotte High School, and actually the only cameras our school has at all is the ones in B building. Playing devil's advocate, another likely purpose is to watch vandals in the rough neighborhood that school is located in. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Serial Bullying

If you want to help support stop bullying look at this link: https://plus.google.com/103717803857676988966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.104.237 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The serial bully

Identifying the psychopath or sociopath in our midst including the socialised psychopathic manager

"All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)

"Most organisations have a serial bully. It never ceases to amaze me how one person's divisive, disordered, dysfunctional behaviour can permeate the entire organisation like a cancer." Tim Field

"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance my deride it, but in the end, there it is." Winston Churchill

"Lack of knowledge of, or unwillingness to recognise, or outright denial of the existence of the serial bully is the most common reason for an unsatisfactory outcome of a bullying case for both the employee and employer. I estimate one person in thirty, male or female, is a serial bully." Tim Field

The Serial Bully

Most cases of bullying involve a serial bully - one person to whom all the dysfunction can be traced. The serial bully has done this before, is doing it now - and will do it again. Investigation will reveal a string of predecessors who have either left unexpectedly or in suspicious circumstances, have taken early or ill-health retirement, have been unfairly dismissed, have been involved in disciplinary or legal action, or have had stress breakdowns. Serial bullies exploit the recent frenzy of downsizing and reorganisation to hinder recognition of the pattern of previous cases.

The serial bully in the workplace is often found in a job which is a position of power, has a high administrative or procedural content but little or no creative requirement, and which provides opportunities for demonstrating a "caring" or "leadership" nature.

Introduction to the serial bully

Embittered by an abusive upbringing, seething with resentment, irritated by others' failure to fulfil his or her superior sense of entitlement, and fuelled by anger resulting from rejection, the serial bully displays an obsessive, compulsive and self-gratifying urge to displace their uncontrolled aggression onto others whilst exhibiting an apparent lack of insight into their behaviour and its effect on people around them. Jealousy and envy motivate the bully to identify a competent and popular individual who is then controlled and subjugated through projection of the bully's own inadequacy and incompetence. When the target asserts their right not to be bullied, a paranoid fear of exposure compels the bully to perceive that person as a threat and hence neutralise and dispose of them as quickly as possible. Once a person has been eliminated there's an interval of between 2 days and 2 weeks before the bully chooses another target and the cycle starts again.

What about Mediation?

Mediation with this type of individual is inappropriate. Serial bullies regard mediation (and arbitration, conciliation, negotiation etc) as appeasement, which they ruthlessly exploit; it allows them to give the impression in public that they are negotiating and being conciliatory, whilst in private they continue the bullying. The lesson of the twentieth century is that you do not appease aggressors.

Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial and feigning victimhood

The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside; he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave, the bully instinctively:

a) denies everything. Variations include Trivialization ("This is so trivial it's not worth talking about...") and the Fresh Start tactic ("I don't know why you're so intent on dwelling on the past" and "Look, what's past is past, I'll overlook your behaviour and we'll start afresh") - this is an abdication of responsibility by the bully and an attempt to divert and distract attention by using false conciliation.

Imagine if this line of defence were available to all criminals ("Look I know I've just murdered 12 people but that's all in the past, we can't change the past, let's put it behind us, concentrate on the future so we can all get on with our lives" - this would do wonders for prison overcrowding).

b) quickly and seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour. Often the target is tempted - or coerced - into giving another long explanation to prove the bully's allegation false; by the time the explanation is complete, everybody has forgotten the original question.

Both a) and b) are delivered with aggression in the guise of assertiveness; in fact there is no assertiveness (which is about recognising and respecting the rights of oneself and others) at all. Note that explanation - of the original question - is conspicuous by its absence.

c) in the unlikely event of denial and counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victimhood or feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions, especially guilt.

This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears, which most people cannot handle. Variations include indulgent self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated", claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be "deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...") and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ... blah blah blah ..." and "I'm the one who always has to...", "You think you're having a hard time ...", "I'm the one being bullied...").

Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the piece. Or presenting as a false victim. Sometimes the bully will suddenly claim to be suffering "stress". Alleged ill-health can also be a useful vehicle for gaining attention and sympathy.

By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they have said or done. It is a pattern of behaviour learnt by about the age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this, but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has been practised to perfection.

A further advantage of the denial/counter-attack/feigning victimhood strategy is that it acts as a provocation. The target, who may have taken months to reach this stage, sees their tormentor getting away with it and is provoked into an angry and emotional outburst after which the bully says simply "There, I told you s/he was like that". Anger is one of the mechanisms by which bullies (and all abusers) control their targets. By tapping in to and obtaining an inappropriate release of pent-up anger the bully plays their master stroke and casts their victim as villain.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave, mature adults do not respond by bursting into tears. If you're dealing with a serial bully who has just exhibited this avoidance tactic, sit passively and draw attention to the pattern of behaviour they've just exhibited, and then the purpose of the tactic. Then ask for an answer to the question.

Bullies also rely on the denial of others and the fact that when their target reports the abuse they will be disbelieved ("are your sure this is really going on?", "I find it hard to believe - are you sure you're not imagining it?"). Frequently targets are asked why they didn't report the abuse before, and they will usually reply "because I didn't think anyone would believe me." Sadly they are often right in this assessment. Because of the Jekyll & Hyde nature, compulsive lying, and plausibility, no-one can - or wants - to believe it. Click here for a detailed explanation of the target's reluctance to report abuse.

Denial features in most cases of sexual assault, as in the case of Paul Hickson, the UK Olympic swimming coach who sexually assaulted and raped teenage girls in his care over a period of 20 years or more. When his victims were asked why they didn't report the abuse, most replied "Because I didn't think anyone would believe me". Abusers confidently, indeed arrogantly, rely on this belief, often aggressively inculcating (instilling) the belief ("No-one will ever believe you") just after the sexual assault when their victim is in a distressed state.

Targets of bullying in the workplace often come up against the same attitudes by management when they report a bullying colleague. In a workplace environment, the bully usually recruits one or two colleagues (sometimes one is a sleeping partner - see Affairs below) who will back up the bully's denial when called to account.

Reflection

Serial bullies harbour a particular hatred of anyone who can articulate their behaviour profile, either verbally or in writing - as on this page - in a manner which helps other people see through their deception and their mask of deceit. The usual instinctive response is to launch a bitter personal attack on the person's credentials, lack of qualifications, and right to talk about personality disorders, psychopathic personality etc, whilst preserving their right to talk about anything they choose - all the while adding nothing to the debate themselves.

Serial bullies hate to see themselves and their behaviour reflected as if they are looking into a mirror.

Projection

Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.

This knowledge can be used to perceive the bully's own misdemeanours; for instance, when the allegations are of financial or sexual impropriety, it is likely that the bully has committed these acts; when the bully makes an allegation of abuse (such allegations tend to be vague and non-specific), it is likely to be the bully who has committed the abuse. When the bully makes allegations of, say, "cowardice" or "negative attitude" it is the bully who is a coward or has a negative attitude.

In these circumstances, the bully has to understand that if specious and insubstantive allegations are made, the bully will also be investigated.

A VERY good resource is http://www.bullyonline.org/ [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglaslewis777 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundant?

Isn't bullying 'serial' by definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.238.22 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The plus side

I think that there should be a section outlining the plus sides of bullying, both for bully and target.

If you want references, here are four:

http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/001765.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/564923.stm

http://www2.canada.com/news/standing+bullies/1418791/story.html?id=801242

http://www.medindia.net/news/Child-Development-Academician-Says-Bullying-Is-Beneficial-To-Kids-46992-1.htm

Allthisforasoda (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The author who says that bulling is good for kids compares bullying to "boisterous banter or everyday playground disputes". The author further thinks that bullying helps prepare kids for later in life. As an adult, if someone treats me the way that a bully treats a student, I'd call the police. The author thinks that dealing with things in the exact opposite way that they will have to do in adult life will prepare them for adult life.--RLent (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree

I completely agree, this needs to be mentioned in some way. WUTCOSTM (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Needs a section with "Some claimed positive effects" or similar. "Controversy", perhaps. I was bullied, and have bullied. Some of it was dead wrong, but a very small amount of it served to prepare me for a rough world full of hate - and 12 years in military/security/mercenary activity. From googling around a bit you get the gamut of opinions, from over-protective mothers to extreme heteronormative religiously sourced pro-bullying, with some actual sense in between. The controversial opinions should at least be presented. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It probably relates to coping strategies. There are a lot of ways that people can respond to abuse or bullying, some responses can be constructive and some negative - it depends on the severity and nature of bullying and character of the victim. But i dont think you can generalise and prescribe a bit of bullying as a positive therapeutic experience. There is a danger that the idea that bullying is therapeutic would be used as an excuse by a bully to bully, saying for example "its for your own good". --Penbat (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would invite you to spend some time studying or experiencing many (most?) military basic and some advanced (the "special" or highly physical ones) training programs. What you're basically looking at there (SERE, basic training, BUD/S, SF, Recon, Spetznaz, Legion, SAS, SBS, Royal Marines etc.) is institutionalized bullying. You'll see people getting psychologically broken down into their component parts, then rebuilt into very efficient cohesive fighting units. Key word "units" - as in, "united" and acting as one. Now, it would of course be possible to design these training programs without such bullying and degradations, but to my knowledge no-one has ever tried in any serious, large-scale way, for most long-term career military professionals would find that to be silly and ineffective, simply not worth the trouble or time when the general model works so well. Granted, that's just my own experience after 12+ years working with 10+ different nationalities' military professionals. I suppose that would be anecdotal and original research. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that military training is managed, directed, and actually has a rebuilding stage after the break-down stage (and even that has a failure rate - a common failing of most people who take the stance that "it toughens you up" is to assume that everyone responds to the same treatment in the same way. They don't. Some toughen up and push back, others break down entirely.) Aggression and dominance is the means, not the end, and if it's plainly not working then any competent instructor should stop, and either reject the trainee as unsuitable or try a different tack. Such directed, purposeful aggression is not bullying, unless it gets out of control (which it has been known to do - such an environment is obviously one in which real bullies stand a good chance of thriving if they're careful not to get caught). Bullying, by contrast, is uncontrolled and purposeless; by definition, in bullying the abuse is itself the end and not the means, and is not self-limiting in any way. The bully does not build up the victim again after breaking them down; the breaking down just never stops. Bullying always continues until forcibly halted, the victim escapes, or the victim is utterly destroyed.82.69.126.85 (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So what are you saying, people who take their own lives (or are maimed or killed) by any kind of bullying should have just toughened up? An acceptable collatorial damage for the good of the body politic? Does this include notorious homophobic bullying in some jurisdictions' military? Are the ex-soldiers or drop outs who come out about their severe bullying just a bunch of unpatriotic pussies? What about executed WWI soldiers for battle shock? What role might "harmless" military brutalisation play in war atrocities?

I would have hoped despite what's been on the news, the military doesn't discriminate, however civilian bullying usually is very much about discrimination. For voluntary military service, like any high pressure job, people are making a conscious choice what to get involved in, have weighed up the costs against their goals, so it's a silly comparison: you might as well say BDSM is bullying. For compulsory service, everyone starts on the same footing of not knowing how to be a soldier, and regardless they know what the supposed point of the tough methods is.

Any steretypical macho heirarchy will stigmatise responses to heirarchical subjugation other than stoicism or pugilism, normalising brutalisation and biasing participants to it. Since we know some bullying victims go on to become abusers themselves, that also suggests how the status quo is normalised for them.

The degree of longterm harm sustained by the bullied reflects the extent of the bullying. It is per se, a negative concept; a disease, which like all disease, should be eradicated or at the very least contained until it can be. Try substituing "sexual assault" for "bullying" and see whether it still sounds justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.182.57 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

TV show

There's a show called Bully Beatdown which invites "bullies" to get into a fight with a professional fighter. 154.5.62.152 (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but...

That show is mindless entertainment, and the 'bullies' are quite possibly actors. While i'm not knocking the show, it doesn't deserve any serious mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.238.22 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the victims don't fight the bullies. A person with fighting experience is selected to fight the bully. Second, the bullies are not actors. My thought on the show? Kids need to be empowered to stand up for themselves, and shoud fight back only when it is needed to prevent getting injured. But plain old "fighting fire with fire" just burns everybodies house down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.194.48 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The kids could get seariously hurt with a man with as much fighting expirience as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.146.114 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Phoebe Prince

The 9 indictments issued yesterday by District Attorney Schiebel in western Massachusetts brings a new chapter to dealing with 'bullying'. Hopefully you will have time to add a section on 'criminal liability'. I believe the Phoebe case is the seminal event for new legal ramifications for such acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.103.19 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My Experiences

Hi,if any one is reading this, I have suffered from bullying at my school. My friends tell me that I am so butiful and that they are just jelous, but sometimes I really just think that they are saying it. A few days ago I was sitting in a seat in the front of the class and a few girls behind me were talking about how fat I was, now I am 6 feet and 4 inches tall and way 90 pounds and even I do not think I'm fat, and they were talking loud so every one could here them. When I said oh and pretended not to be affended by it they all laughed. The reasin that they did this was beceause there not mean but the boys were right behind them. What girls do is put other girls down to make them look cooler in front of the boys. I have talked about this to some of the boys and thay do not think this is cool at all. Girls mostly do it to girls that their crush likes. One girl keeps on being mean to me just beceause the person they like likes me. In the past week I have been told that I am fat , I have no friends, go die in a dich , you are so mean, you are such an idiot, who cares what you think, go tell your imaginary friend -we don't care , go get a life , what a looser, I hate you, and your a "female dog". Oh, and this was a good week. Amasingly this has not realy affected me, i know I have wicked thick skin, but I am very close with my mom and she is appauled by theese actions. In Massachusetts, a few girls have killed them selves beceause of people doing things like this, but for me it has not gotten to this poit YET. My addvise is surround your self with friends, talk to an adult about it, and what you think is the only thing that matters. And if people are talking about you behind your back , just now that it is either a lie or something you already know ,beceause who knows you better then you know your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luv448) (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have interviewed many people, there was this one girl who was bullied by two boys. She was in her science class filling in some bubbles for her test. It mentioned her being Asian, and one boy saw that. She noticed him look, but she did not care. The girl left her science class and entered in her English class. The boy and his friend jumped at her, and asked her if she was "actually Asian." She replied, "Yeah." They started to laugh, and when she asked why they were laughing, they laughed even harder. The teacher came in, and instead of telling the teacher, she cried. It hurt her for weeks. She told the teacher weeks later, and asked, "Why must one be judged for their culture, their religion. their race, their ethnicity?" Bullying can hurt both ways. Bullying does not hurt a person because of someone laughing at them, but simply the reason to why one laughs. What is the difference? There is no better religion, culture, race, or ethnicity. So why does bullying still continue today? -Abdulaziz Almutawa

Ideology and the attempt to "naturalize" bullying.

Before an article like this gets locked, it should be scrutinized for (plainly awkward and) totally uncited, unsupported comments like "Bullying can occur in any context in which human beings interact with each other." This is ideology, and an attempt to make bullying seem like human nature--like an inevitable problem. Sociologists, and most people who take the time to read whole books and stuff, know this is (at least likely to be) nonsense--on Israeli kibbutzim, for example, where adults were not in constant economic competition against each other (as they are in American society and other viciously competitive capitalist societies today) social scientists have noted an absence of bullying among their children in school--there is a natural "pecking order" on the playground, but it never needs to be reinforced with humiliation or physical abuse.

We need to be careful of where our (again, totally uncited) ideas come from, and ask ourselves what their real motivations are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.14.221 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Bullying can occur in any context in which human beings interact with each other." means name any context (such as school or workplace etc) and there is the potential that bullying will occur. But it does not mean that bullying is inevitable.--Penbat (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ijime - Japan

I am surprised that this unpleasant Japanese cultural phenomenon is not even mentioned in this article. In fact should have it's own article. It is a very big problem in schools. These are papers on this very emotive subject subject. Ijime: A Social Illness of Japan by Akiko Dogakinai or Nature and correlates of Ijime—Bullying in Japanese middle school by Motoko Akiba. Ijime can get so bad that some children have even killed themselves. BBC School bullying in Japan

Edit request from Johnbmcdonald, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add Bully Solutions to the external references section <a href="http://www.bullysolutions.com">Bully Solutions</a> Thanks Johnbmcdonald (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This is External Link Spam. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 20:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not external link spam. I work very hard on this website and its a relevant resource for people suffering from and dealing with bullying. -John McDonald

I was sympathetic anyway as the chargeable publications only form a small part of the site, but looking at http://www.bullysolutions.com/index.php/bullying-books more closely, although you list yourself as the author in each case, on closer inspection they are actually written by other authors. Please clarify this.--Penbat (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies.. I am new to Joomla and am still learning how to configure the site. Joomla meant that I created the article in which that information exists. It was not my intention to imply that I am the author of those resources. I have adjusted it. I am the author of the significant amount of research listed down the left side of the website. There are a number of articles written by three other guest authors who are noted as the author on each article. (down the right side of the site under the "Help a bully" section, you'll find the author's credits listed at the top of each article. - John McDonald - 11:22am, 20 June, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.210.22 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I didnt think that you had an ulterior motive anyway - but /DeltaQuad| obviously assumed that you were the author of the publications listed for sale. As you are not there is no question that this is spam so I have just added your link. --Penbat (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - John McDonald 18:20, 20 June, 2010 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.210.22 (talk)

Edit request from June 19th 2010

Although it's an unpopular ideal, i think we should have a section about the plus sides of bullying.

The links posted above by Allthisforasoda should serve as suitable references:

http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/001765.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/564923.stm

http://www2.canada.com/news/standing+bullies/1418791/story.html?id=801242

http://www.medindia.net/news/Child-Development-Academician-Says-Bullying-Is-Beneficial-To-Kids-46992-1.htm

It should be said that although bullying is generally viewed as bad, there are plus sides to it.

Kill me when i die (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No chance. It is well understood that the bully gains psychological benefits from bullying (so it is good from their point of view) but it is always at the expense of the victim. The idea that it is also good for victims is widely discredited and WP:FRINGE.--Penbat (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You say that it's well understood that the bully gains benefits yet it's nowhere in the article. I think that that deserves a mention.

You also say that the idea that there any benefits for the target is widely discredited yet there are four citations above. I think it should be mentioned that there ARE benefits, yet they are widely considered to be outweighed by the harm Kill me when i die (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is like saying the plus side of rape is that it feels good for the rapist. Sysys (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

bullying in the home

4th paragraph: "Bullying can occur in any context in which human beings interact with each other. This includes school, church, the workplace, home and neighborhoods". I personally agree with the idea that a parent beating a child (and other forms of parent->child abuse) constitute(s) a horrible form of bullying, but I suspect that when most people talk about bullying they mean either outside the home or perhaps if within the home then between siblings. (Not that I think it *should* only be used this way, just that I think it is used this way.)

I'm curious to hear what other people think. --TyrS (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Different people have different views as to precisely what is and what isnt bullying. Whatever it is, it is a subset of abuse. It is often thought of as a particular style of abuse, most commonly identified in school and the workplace. In general i think bullying approximates to psychological abuse (which can occur in any context including the home). A child may get "bullied" by a strict authoritarian parent but if there is no sex or violence involved it is not likely to be considered child abuse.--Penbat (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget siblings. There can be some serious bullying between siblings as well. Lova Falk talk 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For sure but my basic point still applies, sibling abuse is commonly differentiated from sibling bullying as sibling abuse is normally considered to involve sex and/or violence in addition to the psychological and verbal abuse of sibling bullying.--Penbat (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant sibling bullying rather than sibling abuse. Saying mean things over and over again just to make the sibling sad, make a sibling feel excluded, play nasty tricks, etc etc.Lova Falk talk 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to separate parental abuse from bullying. It may be a degree of rankism, but not bullying in pure.

Honest opinion, i think too many things are stuck under the umbrella of bullying, parental abuse being one, so i think keep them separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill me when i die (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sticks & Stones...

May break my bones, but words can scar forever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.182.158 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No one truly knows what makes a person feel it to be acceptable to do such things to someone, not even the people doing it majority of the time. It could be that they are ungrateful and unhappy about their own life so they feel if they hurt someone else it will make them feel better about themselves. Or if they are just so mentally unstable that they don’t see the wrong in bullying, or do it for just pure entertainment. Belinda Luscombe states in her articles Why Kids Bully: Because They're Popular that, “Contrary to accepted ruffian-scholarship, the more popular a middle- or high-school kid becomes, the more central to the social network of the school, the more aggressive the behavior he or she engages in.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.46.39 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bullying involving repeated acts

I propose that the definition should be changed to either Bullying is an act of abuse that can but not always be repeated over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful. or Bullying is an act of discrimination that can but not always be repeated over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful. I believe it should be changed because the previous definition "Bullying is a form of abuse. It comprises repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful." has been challenged by at least one expect in the field, Barbara Coloroso,in this video at 34:37-35:03. I agree with her that calling it a repeated act of abuse is untrue. I think once being called (insert hate term here)is bullying, one shove in the hall is an act of bullying, one act of destroying a students property is an act of bullying. Tydoni (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal Bullying

Is there any info on legal bullying? The article mentions laws against bullying, but what about the legal-system-as-bully - such as suing a person out of revenge, or excessive amounts of money awarded, or judicial bullying? 207.216.13.209 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is Legal abuse which needs to be expanded sometime as a separate article. --Penbat (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to German wiki wrong!

German translation is 'Mobbing' - not 'Schikane'. 212.41.82.203 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Looking at the two articles, I agree that de:Mobbing is the article that parallels this one. I've changed the interwiki link. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Same problem again - it should be "Mobbing" NOT "Schikane" (which is much weaker). However I cannot change the link, when I try to it says

"An error occurred while trying to perform save and because of this, your changes could not be completed: Site link Mobbing is already used by item Q207469"

whatever that means. --Soylentyellow (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.49.26.207, 27 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Extended content
Resources Thursday's Child offers a 24/7 hotline for children who are victims of bullying. 1 (800) USA KIDS / 1 (800) 872-5437

67.49.26.207 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Although I understand the good nature of this request, Wikipedia is not for advertising services or products, it is an encyclopedia. Also, that number is US only and Wikipedia is global. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics of likely targets of chronic bullying

A lot of this section is seriously naive, implying that it is often to a significant degree the fault of the victim. Also standing up to the bully is often very naive advice, bullies will often escalate the bullying if confronted but give up if the victim doesnt respond. This is the complete opposite to what is said here. That is because they thrive on seeing the victim's discomfort and get bored if they dont respond. Also there have been plenty of news stories of a victim taking on bullies in the street and then getting killed by them. The best advice to handle bullies is to respond in a carefully considered indirect way. Yes it is true that victims with a victim mentality who have been previously bullied are more likely to be picked on, but that only covers a minority of victims and they are still not to blame in any way, it is just the bully looking for vulnerable targets. --Penbat (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some references for that? LewisWasGenius (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

not offhand although www.bullyonline.org for one supports much of this perspective. My perspective is self evident. People who cross, criticise bullies or dare speak up against them, for example in gangs, frequently get beaten up. Alternatively if you keep your head down and tow the line you are unlikely to get harrassed. Often if you report a bully, there is retaliation and intimidation.--Penbat (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the situation. My own experiences have suggested that the opposite is true in many cases. I'll check out that site. Generally speaking we don't contradict a sourced statement and replace it with our personal views, however well-founded they may be. LewisWasGenius (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that that site seems to go directly against the views of other sources, I don't think we should change it unless we get a consensus that the existing sources are flawed. LewisWasGenius (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to dig deeper. Bullies are often narcissists and criticising a narcissist often triggers narcissistic rage. Narcissists prefer people to be codependent and compliant to give them narcissistic supply. This relationship between bullies, narcissists and psychopaths needs to be reinforced in this article. I personally havent yet got round to it. Reliable academic sources reinforcing these relationships do exist but more commonly the academics who study "bullying" are not the same types of academics who study narcissism, psychopathy and personality disorders. Bullying is just a social construct which is used to describe certain types of abuse and abuse is largely caused by people with personality disorders. The idea that bullies one day arrived from outer space is naive. It is all understood in terms of well established psychological processes. There is about a century of theory since the days of Freud explaining the mechanics of bullying (Psychological projection for example) and the personality types of bullies.--Penbat (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I don't think we should reverse the position of the article without consensus that that needs to be done. I don't see any agreement among bullying resources on this issue. As far as the psychological factors you mention, wouldn't they be better addressed on their respective pages? This article is about the "social construct" of bullying. LewisWasGenius (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Its a 2 way process, bullying to narcissism and vice versa. Anyway to approach this from another angle, the entire text in this section is based on the work of Jay Banks and he doesnt look like a very reliable source. He isnt exactly an academic heavyweight is he ? Yes he wrote a dissertation paper on bullying but thats it. http://jaybanks.com/credentials-references. It doesnt compare to academics who devote their whole lives to the study of the subject. Banks is partly an entertainer. His approach to bullying is not without merit but it is very simplistic. Obviously, however, young children can only be expected to understand the very simple version but it is just not good enough for Wikipedia which needs academic credibility. I havent checked properly yet but i am dubious whether much of the text in the section is even covered by the Jay Banks link.--Penbat (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The text looks to be an abstraction and synthesis of 15 of his videos. The refs need to precisely identify exactly which videos the information came from so it can be checked properly. Otherwise it is almost impossible to check. --Penbat (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

After a quick glance-over, I agree that the Jay Banks link isn't enough to justify the section. Maybe it should be removed entirely and remade from scratch if that information is really needed. The body of the section doesn't seem very relevant to "characteristics of bullying victims" anyway. LewisWasGenius (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Penbat, thanks for pointing out that all targets are not chosen for their perceived vulnerabilities. I've added the second paragraph which attempts to remedy your valid point on this. What do you think?Scott P. (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lewis, specifically what would you think should be changed or removed and for what reason? Scott P. (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I did a fairly major edit to this section in November 2010 attempting to address both of your legitimate concerns, adding the requested refs, and making it clear that many bullying targets are selected on a completely random basis. Since neither one of you appears to have any further questions about this section, not answering any of my questions here, I've gone ahead and deleted the "disputed template" for this section. Thanks for pointing out good ways to improve this section. Scott P. (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the statement in the chronic bullying section that chronic bullying requires consistent response that the victim himself finds inaduquate to be highly questionable. I have much experience with bullying, and it seems like a victim's submission or feelings that his defense is insufficient is at least as likely to be a result of chronic bullying as a cause. You can provide a response that you believe to be best, even believe you won in a situation, and if the bully found anything he considers positive reinforcement from you or from others, he'll come back again. Evidence of submission can obviously exacerbate bullying, but some bullies will continue to attack a harder target so long as they believe their rewards are worth the effort. Also, there are some for whom certain responses are considered either repugnant or dangerous. Again, my experience with bullying suggests that the victim's views of inadequacy are frequently developed by chronic bullying before they become a contributing factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference 18 is not working

It's link http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/SchBullying.htm is dead. A mark "reference needed" is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.74.141 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Repaired broken link. Thanks for reporting this. Scott P. (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Haltnowca, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} http://www.haltnow.ca. Humanity Against Local Terrorism [HALT] - This website is designed to help educate and stop bullying, abuse and domestic violence. HALT was created in order to help people in finding a solution to stop the local terrorism or bullying, abuse and domestic violence within our communities. We designed this website to encourage, aid and support education, prevention and services for the bullied and abused victims throughout each of our communities. We cannot be silent anymore; we have to stand up and say HALT to all forms of bullying, abuse and domestic violence. Together, we can create a voice loud enough to HALT these senseless acts of violence against our children, families and friends. We are the solution, we have the answer, and together we have the power to say HALT. We Have to make a stand and work together and put a stop to the threat of BULLYING (child, cyber, workplace, homophobic, sports, cultural), ABUSE (child, wife, husband, elderly, parental) and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE within each of our communities. Haltnowca (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: If an independent party points out some merits to this website, it might warrant addition. However, the request as it stands now is self-promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing words in section "Effects of bullying on those who are targeted"

I just read this section and noticed that a sentence beginning with "Sadly, the majority of these gifted children..." after ref. 15 is missing words. Could someone who watches and probably knows the development of this article better than me fix it please? --Dead3y3 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Worst humans in history?

"Numerous dictators and invaders throughout history have tried to justify their bullying behaviour by claiming they themselves were bullied. Although it is no justification for bullying; many of the worst humans in history have been bullies and victims of bullying." There is no way this can be called unbiased. "Worst humans"?? Anchorsaur (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is rubbish. For a start, bullying is an unclearly defined subset of abuse where in some cases adult abusers were themselves abused as a child. --Penbat (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also citation is lacking in this section The Consigliere (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Workplace revenge

The article Workplace revenge would be worth adding as a link. From my experience some bullying may be revenge where the reason for the revenge is unclear or unknown. 92.15.24.121 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Workplace revenge and other related interesting concepts are included on Template:Aspects of workplaces which as accessible from Workplace bullying etc--Penbat (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Add [:es:Acoso psicológico]

Add es:Acoso psicológico please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.83.150 (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullying is a form of abuse. It involves repeated acts over time attempting to create or enforce one person's (or group's) power over another person (or group) , thus an "imbalance of power".

This is basically what Wikipedia's editors and administrators do.

207.237.248.85 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Idea for Page Addition

List Bullying and Cyber-Bullying Helpline 1 (800) USA-KIDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva Meybridge (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking over this bullying page it is outlined to include many, if not all aspects of bullying. Yet, I have been interested in this topic for many years. When looking under the heading "Types of Bullying" there are 7 types listed. These are the most common types of bullying. Thus, I wonder if it would be beneficial to those using the site to include less common types of bullying under this heading. The site http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm includes 12 types of bullying and goes into further discussion about Cyber bullying. This are additions I would be interested in adding to this page to broaden the scope of information on this topic. Amber Lynne 86 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That site is generally workplace bullying orientated rather than general bullying. Those 12 types are already covered here Workplace_bullying#Forms_of_workplace_bullying--Penbat (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyber Bullying

The Cyber bullying section is not very detailed, I am unsure if this is helpful to those looking to expand their understanding on Cyber bullying. It appears that the definition from the educator is very helpful, yet I wonder if www.bullyonline.org or other sites that discuss types of bullying and their characteristics could help expand on this type of bullying. There are few locations that are discussed for this type of bullying under this heading. For example, I wonder if there is more information available on cyber bullying through social networking sites as this has increased and become more of problem in current events. Amber Lynne 86 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

there only needs to be a short summary here. There is much more info at Cyber-bullying--Penbat (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Summer44, 19 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

External links

• Canada Anti Bullying Program

Summer44 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Done →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please edit/add these links:
[[nl:Pesten_(gedrag)]]
[[de:mobbing]]

 Done ViezeRick (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

School Bullying Council (United States) www.schoolbullyingcouncil.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishwana (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 July 2012

That page does not appear to do more than offer a publication for sale. Articles are not available for linking to pages like that, see WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for change of unencyclopedic paragraph

I'd suggest that this paragraph: It is often suggested that bullying behavior has its origin in childhood. As a person who is inclined to act as a bully matures, his or her related behavior patterns will often also mature. Schoolyard pranks and 'rough-housing' may mature into more subtle, yet equally effective adult level activities such as administrative end-runs, well planned and orchestrated attempts at character assassination, or other less obvious, yet equally forceful forms of coercion. ...be replaced with something more neutral, like: Adult bullying may originate in childhood.

Things not encyclopedic: The quotation and source the paragraph introduces does not back up the claims made in the paragraph. An "administrative end-run" isn't necessarily a bullying tactic. It could just as easily be a tactic to get around obstructionist bullying. The word "matures" implies growth. The quotation implies the problem is actually a lack of emotional growth. Adult bullying is considered immature.

68.51.95.69 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested removal of sentence implying armed students would reduce bullying

I'd suggest removal of this sentence: Institutions may reinforce bullying; for example, by telling targets of bullies they're responsible for defending themselves, but then forcing them to go to school unarmed.

There is certainly no factual consensus that forbidding people in schools to be armed constitutes institutional reinforcement of bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.95.69 (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Problems with article

IMO this article has the simplistic idea that bullying relates primarily to children fighting in the playground in particular and the idea that it can be nipped in the bud to stop them growing up as adult bullies. By the teenage years bullying becomes more sophisticated and subtle using psychological tactics - simplistic anti-bullying strategies just wouldnt work. There may also be a bullying culture amongst the principal, teachers and parents in a school so they dont necessarily set a good example. Adult bullying is as common as child bullying and is more sophisticated. Also whether a child bullies probably has more to do with their family upbringing, relating to concepts such as narcissism rather than schools. --Penbat (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Semantics of Bullying in Schools

Bullying is defined as a “conscious, deliberate hostile activity intended to terrorize and harm others through the threat of further aggression.” School-age bullying is not limited to any national, religious, or ethno-cultural group. Statistic show that one out of four students are bullied by a peer, over 160,000 children choose to stay home from school due to the fear of being bullied, and lastly, bullying is responsible for childhood attempted suicides .

While many gender-neutral terms have become popular consciousness, the term bully, remains a linguistic intersex. It has been argued that the term bullying warrants recovery by deriving power from the potential effects of bullying: intimidation, humiliation, coercion, and silencing of the victims .

Bullying is delivered in a number of different forms and is not limited to one gender. Forms include verbal, physical, direct, sexual harassment, and relational bullying. Bullying covers a wide range of age groups but is particularly prominent between the ages of 9-18. Boys tend to do more bullying than girls, especially in the form of physical bullying. However girls are just as guilty. They usually tend to bully in verbal forms .

Understanding the semiotics of school-age bullying may increase the chances of stopping the problem before drastic measures are taken by the victims, such as suicide. Bully, target, and bystander are labels that have been created to help describe and understand the roles of the individuals involved in the vicious cycle. Barbara Coloroso, an expert in the field of bullying prevention, explains that the labels serve as descriptors of a child’s behavior rather than permanently labeling the child .

Bullying is usually associated with an imbalance of power. Typically a bully has a perceived authority over another due to factors such as size, gender, or age . Bullies are not identifiable by their appearance or group identification; rather we need to focus on how they act. The definition of bullying briefly describes actions that are exhibited by an individual that is playing the role of a bully . Boys find motivation for bully from factors such as not fitting in, physically weak, short-tempered, who their friends were, and the clothes they wore. Girls that tend to fall in the role of bullying, result from factors such as, not fitting in, facial appearance, emotional, overweight, and academic status .

Individuals that choose to be a bully are not typically born with the urge to be aggressive. It usually stems from the treatment they receive from authority figures, including parents. Bullies often come from families that use physical forms of discipline . This somewhat turns the tables on the bully, making them the victim in a different environment leading us in the direction that school bullies are victims at home. Unfortunately, this leads to a strategy to assist in coping with daily challenges – bully or be bullied .

To profile a bully is a bit harder than suspected. They are usually viewed as loud and assertive and may even be hostile in particular situations. Bullies are not usually the largest kid in a class, but may be part of the popular or cool kids group . The bullies that are part of a popular group may not come from intense authoritative homes, rather they gain acceptance from the peer group by gaining support to bully a victim, but do view it as no harm is being done .

Much research has been conducted on the profile of a victim making it easier to identify specific behavior. Victims of bullying typically are physically smaller, more sensitive, unhappy, cautious, anxious, quiet, and withdrawn. They are often described as passive or submissive. Possessing these qualities make these individuals vulnerable to being victimized. Unfortunately bullies know that these students will not retaliate, making them an easy target that can be targeted on a daily basis .

A general semantics term called indexing is useful in dealing with the different types of bullying. Indexing is a way to categorize of signs. This allows educators and parents a way to assist in recognizing how bullying behavior varies. By understanding and recognizing the different varieties of behavior it helps to allow flexibility in the responses to the variations .

An interesting result from previous research states that the majority of children possess anti-bullying attitudes. However there is a small amount of children that admire those that bully and show little empathy for those that get bullied .

Despite the large number of individuals that do not agree with bullying practices, there a very few that will intervene on behalf of the victim. These individuals are labeled bystanders and unfortunately usually tend to lean toward the bully’s side. Research states that bystanders are involved in either teasing the target or egging on the bully in 85 percent of the incidents.

However, in most bullying incidents, bystanders usually does nothing. This can be problematic because it allows the bully to continue behaving badly . There are a wide variety of reasons why children choose not to get intervene. Typically they worry that they will make the situation worse or risk becoming the next victim.1 Due to the fear factor that children experience as the bystanders, a decline in anti-bully attitudes the older the child gets has been reported. This points to the urgency for a better understanding of children’s attitudes to bullying and the factors that seem to predict these attitudes .

Due to the urgency to better understand attitudes toward bullying a theory have been introduced to assist; the just world belief theory (BJW). This is the idea that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Researchers are using this theory to understand why there is a decline of anti-bullying attitudes. The study determined that children do seek to understand, justify, and rectify the different injustices they come across in everyday life but further research is needed to relate the decline of anti-bullying attitudes being linked to the just world belief theory . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmcbride (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The unilateral merge from Bullycide

Such merges require consensus. The merge has been unwound. Should a consensus be reached that is a different matter. Two editors have, independently, reverted the merge at each end, by coincidence almost simultaneously. There is sufficient separation between bullying and bullycide to maintain separate articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of recently added "Semiotics of bullying in schools" section

While some of the articles reported on in this section were interesting, such as psychologist Cheney's article where he reports his "belief" that group bullying is a "constructive process" that ought not be interfered with by those in charge, such odd minority opinions usually require either better scientifically proven documentation such as empirical research results that support Cheney's theory, or else better proof that there are indeed several other psychologists who also subscribe to Cheney's unusual theory before being used as reference material in a Wikipedia article. I've removed this recently added section for this and other reasons until such time as it can be made to more harmoniously fit in with the rest of this article, and Wikipedia standards in general. Scott P. (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tkirktx, 22 June 2011

I'm an employee for SchoolTipline, a national anti-bullying program. Our mission is to empower students so they can take an active role in ending bullying and other violent problems in schools. In fact, we recently intervened to prevent school shooting - the student had a gun with a list of students he wanted to shoot. Our program is research based and has a power web-based engine that utilizes anonymous reporting through the web and text messaging. While the wiki page on bullying is full of information about the effects of bullying, it lacks information about how to combat it. We can provide content to help people know what can be done about bullying in their school, even concrete examples about how schools are solving the problems they face. To learn more about us, check out our website www.schooltipline.com

Tkirktx (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I took a casual glance through the website, and I'm not readily finding "information about how to combat" bullying. Accordingly, I don't see enough of a resource here that it meets the WP:EL guidelines. Wikipedia is not a directory of links, and I don't see any reason to single out this service to be listed in the EL section. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had any independent third party news sources verifying that lives may have been saved as a result of this same service as you describe, then a reference to this service might be merited in the school shooting article in the form of a reference to such a news source. Likewise in this article, only independent third party news sources, or other similar verifiable independent third party sources of information, are normally either cited as references for an article, or linked to in an External Links section of a Wikipedia article. Thanks for the suggestion though. Scott P. (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

additional reference

http://www.youthrelationships.org/ would be a helpful addition to the resources. This is a curriculum based program that has been peer reviewed, published and has demonstrated improved behaviour in adolescents in particular in dating violence but including bullying, homophobia, truancy. It delves into power and control issues that underlie much of what bullying is about. Bll79llb (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)bll79llb

Edit request from NotOnScript, 27 July 2011

This article links to the File: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:School_bullying_laws_in_the_United_States.svg The legend in this File does not contain the text "; bullying for other reasons is allowed." This article's legend for this File adds this text in two places. This text should be removed.

In the case of Illinois (for example), it is not true that "bullying for other reasons is allowed." The relevant Illinois state law states (105 ILCS 5/27‑23.7(a)):

"Bullying on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, sexual orientation, gender‑related identity or expression, unfavorable discharge from military service, association with a person or group with one or more of the aforementioned actual or perceived characteristics, or any other distinguishing characteristic is prohibited in all school districts and non‑public, non‑sectarian elementary and secondary schools."

In this example regarding the state of Illinois, I don't see any basis for concluding that "bullying for other reasons is allowed."

NotOnScript (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Removed both statements about bullying for other reasons. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Section: Bullying in the MIlitary

The Military said that the rituals that are performed like Hazing is a way for the soldiers to build their characters and roughness that they need to be able to perform in their daily jobs.

{{"Bullying." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2004. 4 October 2011. <http://www.enotes.com/topic/Bullying>.}} KellyCary26 02:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source - it's copied from Wikipedia anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Push factor?

The article says "[Bullying] is even a common push factor in migration." But "push factor" is linked to immigration which doesn't immediately explain how bullying is a "push factor" in immigration. Could this be clarified? Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

Please change "and this behaviour can be encouraged by the unthinking PE teacher. The " to "and this behaviour can be encouraged by the unthinking Physical Education teacher. The "

I believe it would be easier to read because it is not an acronym that needs to be deciphered by those unfamiliar with the term "PE"

Luna Ariya (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing merge to "workplace bullying"

A bunch of articles were created by Penbat called "bullying in ..." for a host of workplace bullying. I think the following articles should be merged:

• bullying in academia
• bullying in IT
• bullying in medicine
• bullying in nursing
• bullying in teaching
• bullying in the military

Do you support or oppose this merge?

• Support. Per WP:UNDUE Pass a Method talk 00:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Must be the daftest merge proposal i have ever heard. Workplace bullying is already a long article and there are still quite a few aspects of the subject in general not yet covered or in not enough detail. The subject matter and sources used in the profession-specific articles are specific to the dynamics of that profession. Some of the profession-specific articles also have some overlap with school bullying. There was also this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia discussing a merge of bullying in academia to workplace bullying which was resoundingly rejected. --Penbat (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Penbat. benzband (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Penbat. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Partial Oppose -- The Workplace bullying article alone is 35kbytes long (excluding references and such). WP:SIZERULE says that 50kbytes is the threshold at which an article could usefull be split up. If we merged these articles - then the very next thing would be cries of: "Oh - this article is very long - how should we split it up?" - and we'd be back to square one. So the question here is: "Could you say all that needs to be said about all forms of bullying outside of the workplace in just 15kbytes?" - if the answer to this is "No" (which I'm 100% sure it is) then we should certainly not consider a merge of all of these articles into one. That said - I believe some merges do make sense. Could Bullying in IT be merged into Workplace bullying? Yes - probably. After all, the former is just a subset of the latter - and there probably is quite a bit of overlap. Does bullying in nursing belong in bullying in medicine? Yes, I think so. So, I certainly Oppose a wholesale merger of everything - but some individual merges might make sense. Once this proposal to merge everything fails (as it surely will) - there should be more discussion about whether we really need quite so many categories. SteveBaker (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support in principle. I would rather see one or two decent articles where posible than a mass of stubs. Saying that it is probably best merge the most likely candidates at this stage (medicine and nursing) (teaching and academia). AIRcorn (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: You are completely missing the point. The references in the profession-specfic articles are entirely specific to that profession. None of the articles are stubs - they are all past that stage. Have you actually looked at them in any detail ?

The title "bullying in medicine" may be confusing to some as "medicine" is specifically meant as a synonym for the profession of doctors or physicians. So more specifically it could be called "bullying in the doctor profession" or "bullying in the physician profession" but that would probably be more clumsy. "Bullying in medicine" is not intended to incorporate nursing. Nursing is more to with "care". Bullying amongst nurses and doctors have different dynamics and have separate academic studies. Doctors & nurses are completely different professions and it would be very awkward to combine the two.

The dynamics between the teaching article (specifically in a school context) and academia article (amongst adults) are are also a lot different. The teaching article relates more to school bullying and the academia article relates more to workplace bullying. As I already said, the issue of merging the academia article has already been comprehensively thrashed out in an AFD and was resoundingly rejected. --Penbat (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Stubs was a poor choice of word. They are quite short content wise though and could easily be merged into each other. My general philosophy is that articles should be built from the top down where possible. Only if the information gets too much should they be split into separate sections. By having them together they are likely to be viewed by more readers, and potentially have extra information added to them. I would go with "Bullying in the medical profession" or "Bullying in the education profession" as the titles. The profession specific references shouldn't make a difference as you will have sections for each, plus information about Doctors bullying Nurses would fit this format quite well. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from my objections of conflating 2 distinct professions/contexts in the same article, your approach also glosses over the possible multi-dimensional interactions of bullying. For example bullying in academia may include:

• bullying of lecturers by the principal
• bullying between the students themselves

bullying in teaching may include:

• bullying of children by teachers and vice versa.
• bullying of principals/teachers by the children's parents

--Penbat (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats why you have sections. AIRcorn (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is no common text covering the subject matter in the separate sections, there is no point in combining them in the same article. The orientation of "bullying in teaching" relates both to school bullying & workplace bullying, "Bullying in academia" is essentially workplace bullying related.--Penbat (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

Please add the following to the section called Further Reading:

Bully at Ambush Corner by Karen Mueller Coombs, an e-book about bullying for Middle Grade readers. Includes a discussion guide.

and also add the following to the External Links section:

www.bullyatambushcorner.com

Thanks.

Karcoo (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, does not appear to be notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012

Please add the following to the Additional Reading Section:

Bully at Ambush Cornerby Karen Mueller Coombs. A middle grade novel that treats a serious subject with a touch of humor.

Karcoo (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, for the same reason above, this is not the place for you to advertise your book--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012

will be kind to remove the file, Bullying en IRFE, 7° Básico B, 2007.ogg because it is of such poor quality and bland that it does not benefit the benefit of the article traces. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I'll remove it, but you may need to reach a consensus for removal if anyone objects. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Beginning

Someone forgot to include cyberbullying as a major form of bullying. Please change that. 99.38.244.81 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on April 8, 2012

Please add the following to the Resources Section:

http: //www.emotional-intelligence-education.com/bullying.html

Not done: I don't think that conforms to our policies on external links. If it does, or there's some significance I've missed, feel free to re-enable the edit request template. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2012

“Bullying can be described as a systematic abuse of power. There will always be power relationships in social groups, by virtue of strength or size or ability, force of personality, sheer numbers or recognized hierarchy. Power can be abused; the exact definition of what constitutes abuse will depend on the social and cultural context, but this is inescapable in examining human behavior. If the abuse is systematic--repeated and deliberate--bullying seems a good name to describe it.” “While not denying the importance of other contexts for bullying, school bullying, perhaps arouses particular revulsion because the problem is so general--it can affect anyone as a child--and because children do not have the rights or the awareness of rights that adults have.” Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from HYPERLINK http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JaPSLkPldpYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=bullying&ots=qLtVt0GLgN&sig=5Te1jbw--T2NYRJGxxK9k86FWfM

KathrynM213-NJITWILL (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: The direct quotations are okay for discussion here. However, before inserting this into the article, it would be better to recast it in original, free prose based on the Smith and Sharp publication. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2012

The suicide of Phoebe Prince, on January 14, 2010, led to the criminal prosecution of six teenagers for charges including statutory rape and civil rights violations, as well as to the enactment of stricter anti-bullying legislation by the Massachusetts state legislature. Prince had moved from Ireland to South Hadley, Massachusetts. Her suicide, after suffering months of bullying from school classmates, brought international attention to the problem of bullying in US schools. In March 2010, a state anti-bullying task force was set up as a result of her death. The Massachusetts legislation was signed into law on May 3, 2010.”

“Research studies have shown that a substantial number of students have are victims of cyber bullying, with various international studies demonstrating a significant level of cyber bullying in schools, which leads to the increased recognition that cyber bullying is becoming a serious problem (Willard, 2006, Li, 2006, 2007;Cross, 2008, Smith 2011). One of the most devastating outcomes of cyber bullying victimization is suicide. It is reported that, in the US alone, at least three teenage children have committed suicide suicide linked to cyber bullying. (Hinduja&Patchin, 2009). Because cyber bullying can occur anywhere, anytime, it blurs the boundaries for adult supervisions and responsibility, and introduces unprecedented legal and educational concerns for schools.” (Li, Smith and Cross 3-4)

KathrynM213-NJITWILL (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraph was copied from Suicide of Phoebe Prince. The last paragraph also appears to be copied text. —C.Fred (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 May 2012

Would you consider an addition to the Types of Bullying section, namely Bullying in the Arts? The subject has been thoroughly researched by Dr Anne-Marie Quigg, and a book entitled Bullying in the Arts: Vocation, Exploitation and Abuse of Power was published last year by Gower. Information and comments can be found here: http://www.gowerpublishing.com/isbn/9781409404828. A number of articles have been written about the research, including:

http://www.city.ac.uk/blogs/city-alumni/2011/06/21/phd-graduate-puts-spotlight-on-bullying-in-the-arts/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2011/may/24/arts-diary (second story) http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/32741/uk-theatre-is-hotbed-for-bullying-study http://www.variant.org.uk/pdfs/issue42/river_bank.pdf http://artsindustry.co.uk/latest-news/two-in-five-arts-workers-bullied/323 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/research-that-shines-a-spotlight-on-backstage-bullies-of-the-arts-world-1-3626405

Dr Quigg has also contributed to the US ebook What Every Target of Workplace Bullying Needs to Know: http://www.overcomebullying.org/workplace-bullying-book.html

The British actors' union, Equity, has just voted unanimously at its annual conference to hold a symposium on the subject.

If the subject was considered to be appropriate for inclusion on the page, I could also submit a main article on the topic.

Piersjackson (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It was only intended to have a paragraph here for different types of bullying. It sounds like you have enough material to do a whole article just as long as you dont just rely on a single source. I should initially forge ahead with developing a new article, maybe using a sandbox. You can ask me on my talk page for practical advice. --Penbat (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - specific edit not specified. IP is welcome to draft exactly what text he or she wants putting in and I shall do so for them under BRD. Egg Centric 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please add hu:Megfélemlítés to the i18n tags.

 Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mocking

In the section General, the work 'mocking' links to an irrelevant article Mockery (about a film). The article on mocking has apparently been deleted. I propose that this be linked instead to Wiktionary:mocking#Adjective unless a Wikipedia article on the subject is created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.57.188 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on interwiki links in articles, so I've just removed the incorrect wikilink. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Effects of bullying sectionputs much weight on Columbine killers as a prominent result - implying that bullied people could all be potential serial murderers, that's disgraceful

As a person who was severely bullied when I was young and have turned out to be an okay person, I find it highly insulting to me and other victims of bullying that the most prominent example of the "effects of bullying" is the Columbine high school massacre. The amount of weight dedicated to that is essentially indicating that bullied people are ticking-time-bombs waiting to explode in psychotic rage and murder other people. It is a shameful stereotype, considering that the suicide rate amongst severely bullied people is far greater than the homicide rate. The weight given to it is disgusting because it is effectively tolerating such shameful stereotyping of bullied people as being potential ticking-time-bomb serial murderers. I am saying this here also because I want people to know that bullied people aren't all potential threats to others.--R-41 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The section is not well written. At present, there's fragments of paragraphs about suicide in the middle of the main body of the section that is otherwise almost entirely about homicide; and then a separate small "Suicide" sub-section after it. Since the sources given appear to suggest that suicide is a more common outcome of bullying than homicide, the "Suicide" sub-section should come first, and could be expanded with a little more detail of the examples. (There are also a few very well known examples missing - Jamey Rodemeyer?) The mention of Columbine should remain, since it's the most notable example of a widely reported phenomenon, but it should be trimmed in size, and moved to a newly created but smaller "Homicide and retaliatory violence" sub-section.

TBH, the entire article is an awful mess, but that's a separate issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt quite go that far but it is certainly very flabby. I have already commented my views on here. It is a high profile subject that deserves better. Bullying is not a phenomena that arrived one day from outer space. It should be described more robustly in terms of recognised psychological and sociological concepts.--Penbat (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work to some extent. Particularly in terms of organization and ensuring overall neutrality. --Xagg (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, this section is extremely misleading, and for more reasons than you even state. Not only does the text imply, contrary to evidence, that bullied kids are prone to violent outbursts, it also mixes up some major facts such that it completely mischaracterizes the Columbine killers. Contrary to the media narrative that emerged shortly after the shootings, a narrative based on unreliable accounts given by confused students to journalists who did a poor job of follow-up and interpretation, Klebod and Harris were not bullied, nor were their targets chosen out of revenge for bullying. In fact, the opposite is true: the killers were themselves the worst kind of bullies. Harris in particular exhibited a type of sadistic, megalomaniacal psychopathy that caused him to feel extreme contempt for most of humanity. His outlandish sense of superiority is what motivated him to take violent action to dramatically act out his dominance of others. In other words, it would not be a stretch to characterize the Columbine massacre, at least from Harris's perspective, as itself an unusually extreme act of bullying. Given that this section is both analytically suspect and, more importantly, factually incorrect, I am removing the reference to Klebold and Harris as out of place in this article. Grifter84 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

School bullying laws map

In addition to the color selection being somewhat POV, there are two elements that do not relate directly to bullying: Law that prohibits discrimination against students based on sexual orientation and gender identity and Law that forbids school-based instruction of LGBT issues in a positive manner. Neither even mentions bullying, although they would be entirely appropriate in an article on how LGBT issues are handled in schools. Bullying is a much broader issue than LGBT concerns. ~ MD Otley (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be best to remove the map from this article and propose its inclusion elsewhere. There must be a huge amount of interpretation in considering whether a law does actually, for example, "forbids school-based instruction of LGBT issues in a positive manner", and the sources (Bully Police USA and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are far from neutral.

In addition, the level of detail is problematic - I don't see that the map is useful in a circumstance of, for example, a student or parent checking Wikipedia to see what laws on bullying the state they live in has. Although I'm biased in that I don't live in the USA, the most useful thing the map says is that the types of anti-bullying laws vary widely between U.S. states. This observation could more suitably be rendered into the accompanying prose, as just a single sentence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It shouldnt even be here. it should be in school bullying if anywhere. All that should be here is a school bullying paragraph summary and link to school bullying.--Penbat (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-organization and general cleanup

The article was messy in terms of organization, particularly of categories, sub-categories, and the content within. I cleaned it up a lot, and also applied some minor fixes to typography, improved a few cases of redundant diction, etc. If you notice anything else, feel free to amend. --Xagg (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo

I think I've found a typo:

"Bullies may may bully out of jealousy or because they themselves are bullied"

Fixed --Penbat (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In international relations?

The lede had a closing sentence re bullying in international relations. Inappropriate for a few reasons. 1. The sources were SparkNotes (RS?) and an unspecified references to one of Keynes's books; and neither source supported the contention. 2. The assertion is WP:OR/WP:SYN. 3. The application of the term in that context can only lead to POV editing; e.g., "such-and-such interaction between so-and-so nations was bullying by the more powerful nation". 4. Expanding this idea of bullying into every human interaction smacks of WP:RGW; e.g. "Bullying is bad and it occurs here-and-there. In fact, it is such a great problem it occurs between social groups and nations!" 5. With these factors in mind, there is no end to how and where the term bullying could be used. The mere fact that someone has a different (greater or lesser) social status (with the inherent and resulting "imbalance" of social power) gives the basis to describe any social interaction as bullying. It seems to me that the term itself is imprecise when used in sociology and psychology -- expanding its use into other areas (especially when lacking RS) is going too far.--S. Rich (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea that bullying applies within politics is entirely valid, the idea that there is somehow completely different psychology in politics is bizarre. Yes the citations may be second rate but that is something of a lesser issue.--Penbat (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that bullying can apply in politics, but we need, we require WP:RS to support. Same goes with psychology vs. politics -- where is the RS that says the idea is different or the same? Allowing second-rate citations goes against WP:V. Consider the slippery-slope -- should we also allow or tolerate second-rate (or third rate) citations? Perhaps we should -- but what is the justification for doing so?--S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Olweus "definition"

This:

Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus defines bullying as when a person is: "exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons". He defines negative action as "when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways".

is not a definition. Consider – a nurse or doctor gives an measles shot to a child, which hurts, and the discomfort of the shot, which is unavoidable, is intentional. According to Olweus, this is a negative action. Other shots are given later. This, according to Olweus, satisfies the "repeated" requirement. Is this bullying? Of course not, because of the vague qualifier "inflicts". E.g., the medic knows s/he is not "inflicting" discomfort because of the great benefit that immunization provides. But from the child's point of view, who does not know how dangerous measles is a a disease, the repeated shots are a reoccurring infliction of pain and torture. Olweus only describes when bullying can occur. He does not define it.--S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

jhonnatan quiroz

Bullying is a phenomenon that is just beginning to recognize sentences in Colombia because of all the abuse that either Verval silk, not unlike psychological creed this race, and turns up in business is a phenomenon that people apply a cienten way or another with a power greater than others and is now is where there is abuse of power or knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.152.204 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

bullying and borderline personality disorder

there is some recent research indicating a strong correlation between being bullied as a child and adult borderline personality disorder--Penbat (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved this from the article space for discussion

I have cut and pasted this here because I am genuinely unsure about its place in an encyclopaeia. So I hoped we might discuss it rather than accept or reject it out of hand.

REINFORCING YOUR CHILD’S INNER CONFIDENCE AND SECURITY

It is seldom for a child who bullies to have bullied out of personal desire or prompting. As culture, we must be "...vigilant to respond in a positive and supportive manner. Do not segregate the individual bullying or being bullied; rather try to gain insight into the catalyst precipitating the bullying behavior." Dr. Asa Don Brown, Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association “If bullying is witnessed, it should be openly challenged. The nature of the bullying should be ascertained and the child’s safety considered at all times.” Lancashire County Council (LCC, 2012)

"Bullies should be taught more constructive ways to vent their anger, frustrations, jealousy, envy, or personal conflicts with another. The bully should not be excluded or ostracized from a group. Bullies are often seeking to belong and fit in. The bully’s positive nature and attributes should be reinforced. Likewise, the individual being bullied should also be provided a supportive and positively influential environment. Ostracizing an individual creates a feeling of being persecuted, ridiculed, set apart, and banished from the “others.” Do not forget that bullies are often acting out, seeking some form of attention. Seek to help the bully, rather than segregating the individual. Ostracizing an individual will only amplify the individual’s internal negativity. It is important to recognize that the act of bullying should not go unpunished, but do it in a grace and peace oriented manner. Everyone deserves to feel love, supported, approved, and accepted." Dr. Asa Don Brown, Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association

Reinforcing your child's inner confidence and security begins in the home and within the community. Reinforcing a child's goodness, worth, acceptability, and approval begins in the home and within the community. All children should be provided this reassurance of their personal worth and goodness.

"We must be hyper-vigilant when training our children. As parents and teachers, we should keep a watchful eye out for danger and difficult times. It should be expected that teachers and parents use due diligence to protect all children." Dr. Asa Don Brown, Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association

I am in two minds about it but am not sure I am competent to judge. The hard returns are for formatting here within the blockquote structure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

yes non-encyclopaedic.--Penbat (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that in the way it is written now, it is non-encyclopedic. However, it should be possible to rewrite this text so a few sentences can be added to the section Intervention. Lova Falk talk 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullying, also Mobbing

Hello users. I've tried adding Mobbing to the main article of bullying but two users have reverted my request. Now it needs to be discussed here. It's rather important to mention that Mobbing is also a form of bullying into the main article. So please help me, adding Mobbing as my desire to a good sentence where it may belong to. Thanks! Dol Grenn (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The 4th sentence of the lead says "If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing." thats good enough IMO. Its also in the bullying tempate and category. --Penbat (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Before you made your edits, there was no mention of mobbing in the lead. Now, as Penbat said, it is in the fourth sentence. So we did not simply revert your request (actually, your edit). We did listen, but both of us agree that bullying and mobbing is not exactly the same. Lova Falk talk 18:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Dol Grenn (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2012

Many people feel that some of the major issues that are in schools are drugs and alcohol use or violence. No one recognizes the importance of bullying. In today’s world, bullying is nothing out of the ordinary. Bullying can be inflicted in different ways, such as: verbal bullying, social bullying, cyber bullying, and physical. Bullying happens every day. The news has expressed the importance of ending bullying in schools and the reproductions and effects of it. According to the National Education Association, 160,000 children miss school due to bullying.People who are bullied can experience negative health issues. They are likely to experience depression and anxiety. Depression and anxiety can affect feelings, sleeping and eating patterns, and can also cause one to lose interest in activities. Children who are bullied also may experience a decrease in academic achievement. A study done by University of Michigan psychologists, found that children who bully have a 1 in 4 chance of having a criminal record by the time they turn 30. Providing guidance, constituting laws and educating society, can help combat bullying. Kaeli02 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Rivertorch (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for "Anti-bullying movement" section

This section neglects the U.S. federal government's campaign and efforts.

Propose adding the following:

In 2010, under the leadership of then Assistant Deputy Secretary Kevin Jennings and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the U.S. Department of Education held the first "Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Summit," bringing together over 150 researchers, parents, students and executive leadership from both non-profit and corporate organizations involved in bullying prevention efforts.. In October, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights released a letter clarifying the overlap between bullying and harassment covered under several Federal Civil Rights Laws that require schools to adequately address the behavior. With increasing public attention in late 2010 and early 2011, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted the first ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention on March 10, 2011 to "dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up.". At that Conference, the U.S. Federal Government's central repository on bullying prevention, StopBullying.gov officially launched. Together with the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Defense, Agriculture, the Interior, as well as the National Council on Disability, the FTC and the White House Initiative on AAPI, which made up the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention, the Department of Education hosted two additional summits in 2011 and 2012, again bringing together the growing anti-bullying field.. In April, 2012, StopBullying.gov was relaunched to include additional information as well as a map tracking state anti-bullying laws.. In October, 2012 the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services launched a PSA campaign with the Ad Council and other partners targeted at parents to talk to their kids about being "more than a bystander.". After Secretary Jennings left the U.S. Department of Education in July, 2011, many of these efforts were spearheaded by Research and Policy Coordinator for Bullying Prevention Initiatives, Deborah Temkin, who was recognized for her work with a nomination for the Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzybzybee (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Looks good but emphasis almost entirely on children so may be more relevant to school bullying.--Penbat (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but so are the campaigns already listed in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.24.242 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this be incorporated, but noting in the wording that it is CHILD oriented and a US initiative. The REFLINKS tool should also be passed over it to flesh out the cites, once 'installed' on the page Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's way too long, especially considering that it's all about US initiatives and bullying is a worldwide problem. How about this shorter version:

Starting in 2010, the U.S. Department of Education has held an annual "Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Summit," bringing together researchers, parents, students, and executive leadership from non-profit and corporate organizations involved in child bullying prevention efforts. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted a White House conference on bullying prevention on March 10, 2011, to "dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up." The US Government's central repository on bullying prevention, StopBullying.gov, was officially launched during the conference.

References

Done. Feel free to reedit. I felt that the original suggestion was a well referenced verifiable piece of prose. Start putting up the same for other countries. Banaticus (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Mobbing to here

This discussion is closed as withdrawn by nominator and as having an overwhelming set of arguments against merging. Mobbing is not currently to be merged to this article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

---

It is suggested that Mobbing be merged here as there is substantial overlap of topics and what differs in Mobbing could well form a new section here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose - Although there may be some overlap, the roots of mobbing and bullying are entirely different. The concept of mobbing was developed by Lorenz, Heinemann and Leymann. Also any overlap is split three ways with workplace bullying, school bullying and bullying. It would be totally implausible to do a complex three way merge anyway. A link to mobbing is already included in the bullying intro so the connection is already made clear.--Penbat (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Let's take this point by point. It doesn't matter who developed the concept - just whether it's isomorphic with another concept, which frankly it is. It also doesn't matter that there are subtopics - there can be and are subsidiary articles, as you correctly note, but if there's a duplicate of a main article, why, the merge target is the main article. If there happened to be 'Workplace mobbing', 'school mobbing', and so on, then we could merge them to the matching bullying sub-articles. So there's no issue about "three way merge" - it's a simple one-to-one merge. And there is no reason not to provide mentions and references to the great men, we should of course do that.

Now, if you wanted to provide a reason for opposing, it would be a demonstration that bullying and mobbing were different. I believe that will be impossible, because they are the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same. Mobbing in humans is generally considered to be group bullying and is derived from group animal behaviour (Lorenz's studies see Mobbing (animal behavior)). Mobbing is a widely understood concept in the animal world and the same concept has more recently been applied to humans. You,ve lost me on your reply to my 3way merge point - there would be a 3 way merge and it would fragment the integrity of the mobbing concept.--Penbat (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The animal behaviour variety is clearly not the same as human mobbing/bullying, as no attribution of conscious malign intent is generally made to animals, and a group of small birds ganging up to ward off a hawk which is trying to eat some of them is not much like human mobbing really. I suspect that is the good reason why it was long ago moved out of Mobbing into its own article - so Lorenz is not a source for human mobbing at all. On the single/group aspect, mobbing like bullying is already used both ways, though it appears that in USA it's mainly group, in Germany it's certainly also individual. I think (given Warden's intervention below) that this won't go ahead, but for what it's worth there would be no reason for a multi-way merge, just a merge of M to B; the existence of B1, B2 etc as sub-articles would not interfere in any way, nothing complicated about it at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not yet This journal indicates that there's a linguistic issue here as the concept of mobbing has been mainly researched in countries such as Germany and Sweden. There seems to be numerous words to describe these activities and others include harassment and victimisation, which have separate articles. What's puzzling to this English speaker is that mobbing, in the Continental sense, includes cases of one-on-one hostility, not just many-to-one. As the matter seems complex, I think we should hesitate to merge.

Note, by the way, that I rewrote disruptive physician today. I put that in the workplace bullying category too, so people here may be interested.

Warden (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - clearly there are several closely-related concepts (harassment, victimisation, bullying), not likely to be identical. It does seem to me, however, that since mobbing has both individual and group senses - just like bullying - they are in fact good merge candidates, but perhaps you're right that more water must go under the bridge before everyone sees it like that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the start of workplace bullying you will see a link to the workplace section in mobbing. So there are already prominent links to relevant sections in mobbing connecting the two. There is nothing gained by going further by doing a merge and quite a lot lost. Mobbing specifically means "group bullying". The overlap occurs because bullying often (but not necessarily) occurs in groups anyway. But they are not the same and the origin of the concept is different.--Penbat (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that mobbing (in its group sense) means group bullying. The German sense of mobbing meaning individual bullying also exists, bringing the two terms still closer together. I'm happy to agree that there was an ethological origin to "mobbing" but it has moved on from that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Havent you got a home to go to? Have you not noticed "If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing." in the intro in bullying? No i have not just drawn the definitions closer, mobbing is not just simply "group bullying", that is slightly simplistic as mobbing has its own theoretical concepts eg relating to the animal kingdom.--Penbat (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no call for incivility of any kind, you yourself wrote 'Mobbing specifically means "group bullying".' However as I implied above, I intend to withdraw this proposal unless anyone else has a view on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose -- There are persuasive, reliable sources which support a need for two articles. For example, I wonder if others will agree that an argument against the merge is summarized in the first paragraph of Shallcross' "Workplace Mobbing: Expulsion, Exclusion, and Transformation"?--Ansei (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's clear which way sentiment lies on this issue. Proposed merge is withdrawn. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

@ChiswickChap -- It was not unreasonable to suggest a merge. This was made clear by Shallcross in 2008 (emphasis bold added)

"While there is increasingly widespread knowledge and reporting of the problem of workplace bullying across the globe, the problem of workplace mobbing is less well understood, at least in English speaking countries. While the problem is legislated against in many European and Scandinavian countries as well as the Netherlands, the mobbing phenomenon is not formally recognised in most English speaking countries. In fact, some researchers claim that mobbing is simply another name for bullying."

My guess is that the subject is to be a grey area? --Ansei (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we put this discussion to bed please. It says "SOME researchers" meaning that it is only a grey area for SOME researchers.--Penbat (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

3.4.1.1 Suicide “Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, according to studies by Yale University”<ref>(School Bullying-Bullying Statistics) /ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganford (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013

Most bullying starts within the home, the child that has become the bully either has seen it happen or is experiencing it firsthand. They have usually been bullied by their parent or older sibling, or have seen their parent bully someone else and they go on to believe this behavior is acceptable. Most bullies are likely to have run in with the laws, and could possibly face jail time. The bully can then go on to raise a family and continue the bullying to their children, starting the cycle over again.

Lajohnson1078 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Of targets" section misquotes source

If one refers to the original source linked to, the quote actually should be: "The typical victim is one who is likely to demonstrate internalizing symptoms; engage in externalizing behavior; lack adequate social skills; possess negative self-related cognitions; experi- ence difficulties in solving social problems; come from negative community, family, and school en- vironments; and be noticeably rejected and iso- lated by peers."

Since the quote given in Wikipedia is not accurately representing any textual sequence from the given source, it should be removed. I suggest replacing it with the text given above--perhaps removing some of the end-of-the-line hyphens. Thank you!

P.S. I wonder how something like this can happen. Do some Wikipedia contributors not understand what "accurately quoting a source" means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.193.79 (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2013‎

Not done: The quote is in the first link in the citation, not the second. 786b6364 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

....... This still needs fixing, as follows: The title of the first reference is not "Predictors of Bullying and Victimization in Childhood and Adolescence: A Meta-analytic Investigation", as is given in footnote 21, but is apparently a mere press release, whose byline is "Who Is Likely to Become a Bully, Victim or Both?". Thus the citation (footnote 21) is misleading in three ways: (1) it is just one footnote but refers to two sources; (2) the two sources contain different text and have different titles; (3) the title given has the usual journal article register, suggesting scientific authority, but the quote is actually from the informal press release. Suggested fix: 1. Separate the two references in footnote 21 into two separate footnotes. 2. Give the correct titles of each. Make the journal article a "see also" reference, so that it does not appear the quote is from the journal article. The matter is of some interest, as the quote refers to typical victims being likely to be aggressive, which does not occur in a similar quote in the journal article. Since scientists are often more careful in what they say in professional journal articles than elsewhere, and the author of the press release is unknown, Wikipedia should maintain the distinction and make clear that the quote does NOT come from the journal article. Thank you!

Not done: as above. Mdann52 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

People identifiable in illustrative photographs

There are people identifiable in the illustrative photographs for this article (also linked in other articles), and there doesn't seem to be any appropriate justification at the image source pages. So presumably they should be taken down? —DIV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.115.169.181 (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

"compare with the German buhle "lover"".

Can someone write the German noun with a capital B? Thanks! :-)

--Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Correlation not causation

Under the "Violence" heading are listed some well-publicized criminals who are known to have been bullied prior to their crimes. The clear implication is that being bullying was a cause of their later actions. I suggest adding a third paragraph, something like:

"This must not be taken to suggest that bullying victims are more prone than average to violence. All we can infer from the above is that having been bullied is not enough to keep victims from later becoming violent themselves." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.109.190 (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The History section

This contains the following text:

The Fifth Volume of the Newgate Calendar contains at least one example where Eton Scholars George Alexander Wood and Alexander Wellesley Leith were charged, at Aylesbury Assizes, with killing and slaying the Hon. F. Ashley Cooper on February 28, 1825 in an incident which might today be described as "lethal hazing".

What interests me is that this is not an episode of bullying, nor is it anything to do with hazing. It was some form of ritual, as one can determine by reading the reference, but it is and was a time honoured device whereby boys would settle differences. The difference in age and stated size in the account gives one an interesting disparity, but the smaller seemed to be a match for the larger. The issue was that neither boy gave in, not that it was bullying nor hazing.

For this reason, having found the correct reference, corrected it and studied it, I am about first to correct the wording in case anyone chooses to revert my removal, and will then remove the passage. If you decide to revert my removal, please read the reference before you do. Fiddle Faddle 09:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On removal of the wording I found the need to remove the subsequent sentence as well. The section was using the alleged bullying documented in the reference as an example of recorded bullying through the centuries. Patently it was not that anyway, since it was one example, albeit incorrect, from 1825. The paragraph now flows less well, something that is not a sin, and needs to be populated with details to substantiate its claim that there are well documented instances over the centuries. I have flagged it for attention.

One might consider the forcing of Socrates to drink hemlock as bullying unto death, which were it so, would make a great foundation stone. What was the Spanish Inquisition? How about the alleged persecution, trial, and crucifixion of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth?

If good examples do not arrive then the introduction paragraph to that section requires recasting. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from OnTheMountainTop, 20 December 2013

Under the section "Intervention" there is a line of text that reads "Researchers have been considered the just-world belief theory to explore a posited decline in anti-bullying attitudes." "Have been considered" is poor grammar in the context and obscures the meaning of the sentence. It should probably read something like "have been considering" or "have considered". — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnTheMountainTop (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this problem, I have now fixed it. Due to the age of your account, by my calculations you should now be able to edit the article itself as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

doody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.147.36 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Compare bullying and torture

How far is torture from bullying? Should a link to torture be added?117.221.180.17 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)LouisI

No other side effect? So bullying is a good thing?

So if a person is bullied he either suicides or becomes a serial killer unless he becomes a better person? Is this all the negative effects? Because it seems to say nothing of the mental health of the victim and that unless he overcomes to become a better person he's better off dead. It effectively means that bullying is the fault of the victim. It also suggests bullying is a useful albeit risky way of bettering a person's character provided the right safeguards are available. So to confirm: are these all the side effects? And is bullying constructive to building a person's character in the right environment? In short, is bullying a good thing?61.3.184.139 (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Gekko

I think the question should be worded a bit differently and less sarcastically, but it needs asking. The only thing I can think of to cite for this, honestly, is To This Day. If somebody is willing to poke around on Google Scholar (preferably someone who's actually subscribed to journals like that), that would probably help a lot. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 15:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also if bullying is good does that mean that actions like kettling and guantanamo bay torture methods are also constructive bullying? Or does that mean that since the victims have been bullied they have now become a potential threats as they say? What I'm asking is who takes the blame here: the victims, the bullies or neither? Consequently does that mean that torture is acceptable?61.3.184.139 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Gekko

I think good effect of bullying should be put in "controversial"61.3.184.139 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Gekko.

too much emphasis on school & child bullying

article has too much too much emphasis on school & child bullying - in adult bullying it tends to be much more sophisticated involving various psychological tricks as well as intimidation. Adult bullying much rarely includes physical abuse than child or school bullying.--Penbat (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly true, but it may just reflect the sources. Until relatively recently, "bullying" was something that was seen as done by or to children, and "bullying in the workplace" (or in families only involving adults) was not much discussed. It's only in the last few decades that it's been more widely accepted that bullying happens throughout life, and in particular is not uncommon in the workplace. (In the home, between adults, it's rarely called that... maybe sources disagree on that aspect too.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally we also have an article (in quite bad shape) School bullying, and some content could perhaps be moved there. It will still always be a constant battle to keep this article free of excessive amounts of such content. This is because school bullying still has a way higher profile than workplace bullying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(Maybe an edit notice "please consider adding content about school bullying, not here, but to School bullying instead" might be useful?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Bully characteristics carried into adulthood

A recent study published in the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America have suggested that individuals who bully in the early parts of their lives have lower levels of inflammation in their body compared to those who were the victims of bullying in their early years.

References

Error in translated link:

Bullying redirects to acoso sicologico (sicological harashment) en spanish, which is not what bullying is.

Byllying has an overall gaussian coverage between IQ 90/95 to IQ 100/105 and is associated with autistic social patterns whose underlying causants are internal cerebrum scar tissue. (Scar tissue hinders neuronal growth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.174.60 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bullying. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/HHS_PSA/pdfs/SBN_Tip_6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050217152258/http://www.coastkid.org:80/si-sob.html to http://www.coastkid.org/si-sob.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4