Jump to content

Talk:Harassment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cwilso20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

thanks for the work but... hows about official harrasment , by far the most intersting and arcane sort? \\\\\\\\\\\\\Wblakesx 03:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)wblakesx[reply]

pls tell me the effect of sexual harrassment on acedemic performance on student.

US Centred

[edit]

Sexual harassment is not only punishable in the US, though the History section gives that impression. Perhaps some other countries' harassment laws could be detailed?

Subsections have been created. Shawnc 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above comment, I have added a page on Harassment as covered by UK law. I'll let some-one else judge what they think of it as it, is the first thing I've uploaded anything to Wikipedia, before I add in a link on the page to it. jennyemily.

Adding Canada and UK still makes it quite US centered (As those are the two closest society you coul find). It would be interresting to have an overview of what exists in europe, japan, china, russia ... well, in other cultures than US. ( US, canada and UK and pretty much the same culture anyway. Europe is pretty close to.)
[edit]

This is the very definition of mobbing. Mobbing is a form of harassment which takes place in the workplace. You can find more information at http://mobbing.ca

For your convenience here is the link you can add to "External links":

Radyx 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal Harrasment

[edit]

While out surfing I found this informative howto on the lessor know form of harassment called subliminal harassment: http://www.geocities.com/dbdoggle

SLAPP

[edit]

Since it is basically an american term and it not in use in Europe or elsewhere, should it just be mentioned under the american section, or under the general legal section as shown? Comments appriciated. Shot info 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. There are forms of harassment SLAPP suit laws elsewhere. We'll have to expand this. Ilena (chat) 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't read too bad, although I would write "for example, SLAPP suits" (after all, they an example "legal harassment" in the context of the article Harassment). It does allow a dovetail into the SLAPP article. The SLAPP article is probably the "better" location for the discussion initiated above. Comments? Shot info

Pronunciation

[edit]

Does anyone have info about the weird change in pronuncation of the "harassment" that took place among media outlets during the 1980's? 69.180.16.5 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosalie p,gumabay

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.235.167 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Harassment

[edit]

Shouldn't we have a section on telephone harassment? I have an ex who keeps calling me up and hanging up. She's even done it from her workplace. She just did it again and I'm going to get her fired and arrested for it. During sentencing, the judge will no doubt severely scold her and perhaps even laugh at her--unless she actually uses the only defense that would help her, which is that she is in fact mentally ill. Regardless of how it's adjudicated, however, telephone harassment is a real problem, even in the age of Caller ID, and I'd be happy to write this section of the article if others agree. Qworty 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other views on harassment?

[edit]

There should be something in here about how some right wing and libertarian groups like FIRE argue that the modern definitions of harassment are too politically correct, and that they limit individuals' freedom of expression and therefore are modern-day censorship. I'd put it in, but I just can't find a place to stick it. It definitely is a fairly common view, and I think it deserves a mention, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue bear sd (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an entry regarding Thin-Skinned?

[edit]

In politically charge discussions like this, it's clear that thin-skinned should rate a wiki entry. There are certainly many 'false positives' and few would argue that males, most often, are the innocent accused. While harassment is surely a negative to be addressed, the minimal consequences for those making a false accusation surely warrants closer scrunity. HomeBuilding75.39.248.115 (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment itself is not controversial or politically charged. Most cases are clear-cut and most cases of harassment are things that would be condemned by everyone. Of course there are certain cases that are controversial for various reasons, but that doesn't throw the rest of the cases into question. (In the same way, there are cases where someone takes an item that doesn't belong to them, but it isn't theft - that doesn't mean every article on "Theft" is suddenly questionable.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Harassment

[edit]

Shouldn't there be something, at least a disambigous redirect to policy and warnings, for harassment on Wikipedia?? where do I find the warnings for this specifically??GabrielVelasquez (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Harassment.Jeremystalked (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section seriously needs rewriting.

[edit]

At the moment the text of this section reads as though it's been produced either by someone with a weak grasp of written English or by running foreign-language material (I suspect French from some of the syntactical and grammatical constructions) through an automatic translator such as Babel Fish.

If people agree that it needs attention, I'll try to knock it into shape over the next week. --Kay Dekker (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph under Etymology sounds like wild speculation, claiming that certain things "should" be in dictionaries but somehow mysteriously aren't there. I'd think that paragraph should simply be cut out, rather than trying to edit it. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the rest of the Etymology section is a lot better either. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous talk about the etymology section is agreeable, meaning I agree with it; I made a start at editing the section, but will have to return to it later to clean up more of the numerous problems.Cire99 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Editing Guru~s of Wikipedia~--

[edit]

Great Article, much needed information here concerning Community Based harassment ! Please checkout the "Stalking" article everyone# there are problems here . . . 71.182.198.112 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cyberbullying" image removed under WP:PERTINENCE

[edit]

Does the image of the text "CYBERBULLYING" inside a no sign (circle with a slash) serve a purpose? It has no annotation. Is it an example of what opposition to online harassment might look like? Is it presented as a real life example of opposition to online harassment, perhaps meant to show that online harassment is an issue people are currently opposing?

I am a novice to editing wikipedia, however this image struck me as being decorative, unlike the other images I see here. I looked up the style guide on images and found WP:PERTINENCE, which only strengthened my initial observation. I do not think this image has a place in this article. I will edit the page to remove it. Could anyone adding it back please explain their reasoning here?

68.108.21.126 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

definition

[edit]

Should be "to subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation." or "make repeated small-scale attacks on". Whether some offense is taken or not has really nothing to do with the definition. "Unsolicited annoying, alarming or abusive conduct or words which are threatening" is the legal definition (US). Once again doesn't use the extremely relative term of offensive. Endercase (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

make page Phone Romeo

[edit]

Person who calls random numbers to find partner. (it's not an immediate harassment in all countries, especially if the person doesn't call many times the same person, and doesn't use bad language, hasn't ever killed, raped, stolen money. Things in India are strict. Police doesn't analyze one's specifics because it's a huge country with many crimes. Police in India generalizes easily its policy (same as with rapists - Europeans usually lynch less rapists. Sometimes in India they attribute immediately criminal names, Europeans and other westernised cultures (Japanese) are comparatively careful about attributing generalized changes. The crime of India against criminals. A big issue. Delicate cultures are the ones who even respect the filthy pigs. India isn't subtle by no means! Emotional and extreme yes, but that ain't methodical and analytical!)

India's 'Phone Romeos' Look for Ms. Right via Wrong Numbers - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com › world › asia phone romeo from www.nytimes.com Mar 22, 2017 · LUCKNOW, India — In a glass-sided call center, police constables clicketyclack on computer keyboards, on the trail of a particularly Indian sort of criminal. The “phone Romeo,” as he is known here ...

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment doesn't have to be persistent?

[edit]

Whilst harassment that isn't sexual harassment requires a course of conduct in England for example under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and therefore some level of persistence, although two events with a sufficient nexus is enough, I am not convinced that "sexual harassment" has involve persistent advances, because a single incident is enough under the Equality Act 2010 (which is the law that applies to the workplace and appears to be dealing with sexual harassment). Thus, a single event could be sexual harassment, although it would have to have the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them, which I suppose a single event could do. No need for persistent advances - a single advance could do as it could be offensive and doesn't need any refusing, whether gentle or otherwise, as could still have the effect of creating that environment and the perpetuator ought to have known even if they did not. aspaa (aspaa] 21:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent alterations to this article are socially irresponsible

[edit]

Harassment traditionally has a legal definition that is more or less the same from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is widely understood to be one or more of "aggressive", "intimidating", "repetitive" - not just "offensive" behaviour. However, this article has been noticeably adjusted, recently, to be more in line with the relatively new and very hyperbolic use that would include something like: being told something you don't like on Twitter. It is irresponsible to conflate harassment with mere offensive behaviour. We are in danger of losing an important rhetorical differentiator between causing offense and, well... actual harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:C040:860:E0B6:2073:802F:5AC8 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further research to be done

[edit]

I would suggest adding a link on further information to sexual harassment in the workplace, since there is one for education and military. A section done to define types of harassment such as verbal harassment could be helpful, along with psychological harassment and physical harassment. Under the section of "Laws", updated sources would be beneficial. -Cwilso20 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Harassment of W. Duncan" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Harassment of W. Duncan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 16 § Harassment of W. Duncan until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection re addition of domestic violence content

[edit]

Hi all! Page is very briefly protected to prevent the current minor edit war which will otherwise lead to blocks. Note this is not an endorsement of the current version, it's just the one that was there at the time the protection was applied. Per WP:BRD a bold addition that is reverted should then be discussed. DDCool14, your edit to the article has been reverted a couple of times - would you mind now bringing it to this page for discussion so a consensus can be reached on whether to include, modify or exclude?

Also pinging MrOllie as the other editor presently working on this page. But of course everyone welcome to contribute to any discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. So the current version does not reflect the edits I've recently made, which adds a gender perspective to harassment (aka harassment in a domestic violence context), and infos about Canadian law and harassment (I'm a jurist in Canada). MrOllie just keeps undoing them, which I don't understand. DDCool14 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edits were-- (Sorry, the formatting it weird-- I copied/pasted)
Domestic violence
Harassment is a common tool used by an abuser to exert coercive control over their partner or ex-partner. Professor Evan Stark, who first coined the concept of coercive control in his 2007 manuscript Coercive Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life, has described stalking as a common component of coercive control. In this way, harassment is a tactic deployed by the abuser, within a larger pattern of abuse which can involve intimidation, assault, threats, gaslighting, degradation or other forms of abuse.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
Kathryn Wellman has documented how abusers do “use the legal system as an additional avenue to harass their victims”. She cites abusers shifting blame and victimising themselves and therefore filing their own protection orders or claiming sole custody of their children.[2]link[3]
Canada
Canada prohibits harassment, and as well as the related offences of indecent communications and harassing communications.

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. (2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them; (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family. – Section 264 of the Criminal Code 372 (2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication. (3) Everyone commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass a person, repeatedly communicates, or causes repeated communications to be made, with them by a means of telecommunication. – Section 372 of the Criminal Code

In 1984, the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibited sexual harassment in workplaces under federal jurisdiction.
Harassment is a common tool deployed by an abuser in a domestic violence context. Canada does not currently criminalise domestic violence itself, but some incidents of domestic violence are nonetheless absorbed by already existing, more general offences such as those of criminal harassment, indecent communications and harassing communications.[1]
Criminal harassment requires the victim to reasonably fear for their safety of the safety of their relatives because of the conduct of the abuser. Canadian caselaw has ruled that this notion of safety includes physical, psychological and emotional safety. The five constitutive elements of criminal harassment are: (1) the accused committed an act described in section 264 of the Criminal Code; (2) the victim was harassed; (3) the accused knew that the victim felt harassed, did not care, or was willfully ignoring it; (4) the behavior of the accused caused the victim to fear for their safety or that of an acquaintance; and (5) the victim's fear was reasonable in the circumstances.[1][4]
Professor Isabel Grant has documented the gendered nature of intimate partner criminal harassment, as it is overwhelmingly committed by men against women.[5]Plus, lawyers Michaël Lessard and Romane Bonenfant have recently highlighted that the criminalisation of harassment has twin objectives in a domestic violence context, namely protecting the victim’s security and prevent further escalation, as harassment is oftentimes a predicator of aggravated violences, including femicide.[1]
The decision R c Rancourt, rendered by the Court of Appeal of Québec in 2020, exemplifies criminal harassment in a post-separation context. Following their breakup, the accused harassed his ex-partner over a period of two months. He sent anonymous emails and letters to two friends of the victim, in which he portrays her as a seductress and a manipulator. He spied on her, called her frequently, sent her letters of insults, and threatened to share screenshots of Facebook messages and photos. The victim testified feeling “watched”, not feeling well, and that “there is anxiety” [translated]. The Court noted that the victim was “afraid that it would start over again”, that the harassment had psychological consequences that impacted the victim’s work and her personal life, and that the victim was afraid as she didn’t know what the accused was capable of. The Court added that the victim’s testimony “describes a feeling of fear or apprehension that goes beyond mere worry, embarrassment or discomfort, and that can be likened to a state of fear” [translated]. The accused was therefore found guilty of criminal harassment and harassing communications.[6] DDCool14 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy quotations of laws or court decisions are not really done here - we are supposed to summarize based on secondary sources, not quote from primary sources. As to the coercive control stuff, that has two problems - one is that we have separate articles on domestic violence and abusive power and control, which is where such content belongs. Second, it is a set of disparate sources being combined to make a point - something that we don't do on Wikipedia (See WP:SYN). That kind of thing is very common in academic writing - perhaps you're more used to that? But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a journal article or a persuasive essay. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harassment&oldid=1234892423"