Talk:Bullying/Archive 1

message: Just a note, I've removed the link in the "see also" section to the Bully videogame being developed by Rockstar games. I really don't think a fictional RPG/action title has much (if anything) to do with bullying in the real world. The only reason I can think of it being there is to showcase the sensitivity of the issue of bullying by highlighting the attempts to have the videogame banned, but it seems pretty far off the track to me. Does everyone think removing it was ok?
: I don't think it's a bad link. Think of it as "portrayals of bullying in popular culture." --Zippy 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In many respects an article on bullying would not be complete without a talk on the portrayal of bullying in popular culture, I suspect. LinaMishima 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to "Bully" videogame 

message: "Students who are victims of bullying are typically anxious, insecure, cautious, and suffer from low self-esteem, rarely defending themselves or retaliating when confronted by students who bully them. They may lack social skills and friends, and they are often socially isolated. Victims tend to be close to their parents and may have parents who can be described as overprotective."
The source is http://www.nldontheweb.org/Banks_1.htm
This above statement makes me mad. Bully victims are often high achievers and very clever making the bully feel inadequate and jealous. Also bully victims are often in the wrong place at the wrong time or have some vulnerability for example an employee has to stick at a job where he is being bullied because he has to pay off his mortgage and can't get another job. --Penbat 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also old people, people with disabilities or women get targeted which are not attributes that they can do anything about. --Penbat 09:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement is largely correct. However that behavior is, at least in my case and no doubt many others, a direct result of bullying, not the cause. Also, I would have to say that someone who inflicts pand and/or suffering upon others for amusment is seriosly lacking in social skils. 70.80.107.221 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, bullies are usually popular kids with many friends, while the victim is usually unpopular. So I would argue that the victim, not the bully, is the one who is insecure and lacks social skills. The fact that they may be intelligent and a higher achiever is irrelevent, because one can be very intelligent and still insecure. At least that's how it is in school. In adulthood things may be different. Edrigu 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I think we have POV problems the last paragraph in the Locations of Bullying section:
"Bullying in the military can occur when a superior misuses their power to get subordinates to do whatever they want including sexual favours. However the excuse for this sort of behaviour is that the military is not subject to normal civilian laws so they should be allowed to do what they want. This can lead to a high number of sucides [sic] and mysterious deaths of subordinates which are not investigated openly. Deepcut Barracks in the UK is one example of this where the UK government refuses to do a full public enquiry."
My main problems with this paragraph is the sweeping, unsupported comment about the acceptance of bullying in the military; it relies completely on generalization. Any idea on how to incorporate specifics into this paragraph, or  should I just delete the part about "normal civilian laws"?
-Throbblefoot
:I don't like the bit about "so they should be allowed to do what they want" but it is true that the military is not subject to normal civilian laws. - 67.172.124.99 07:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better - thanks, Rebekah Zinn! -Throbblefoot 19:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't there a few POV statements here? 

message: Bullying is a form of aggression. Aggression has helped man fight predators and now agression is part of his genes. Bullying is fun because it lets you express your (agressive) genes. The way to stop bulling is by both by making the bully understand that he is acting like a caveman and by countering the fun he had bullying with a larger punishment.
- fvdham
Bullying at work is a method of motivating others by short-cutting social or organisational rules of interpresonal equity. It might be used to make a person work harder, or to get them to leave, to cover up perceived or actual inadequacies in one's self or one's friends, to impress upon others that one is tough (and not to be challenged), or for little more than sadistic pleasure. It is akin to dictatorship. It can be justified by ignoring the facts of a persons merit, and by spreading and embellishing rumours about a person's shortcomings. A person who bullies would not describe their behaviour as bullying, and would have a potentially infinite number of plausible-sounding reasons to justify their actions. 
It is near impossible for a target to stop bullying by asserting their right not to be bullied, particularly when the bully has the support of (or is) the employer. Exceptions to this truism include the conversion of Biblical character Saul. The only way to stop bullying in a workplace is for someone of higher authority than the bully to recognise the behaviour as misconduct, incompatible with the employer's objectives, and to deal with that misconduct by the same procedures as any other misconduct might be dealt with. -- Justdignity 22:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of bullying and how to stop it 

message: Some refutations on alleged bullying.  The whole section seems like total BS to me.  Can anyone offer a reson why this section should be retained in the article?
:I agree.  I deleted it.  While I believe that many cases of bullying may be overblown, and a few may even unfounded, the section was unscholarly at best.  Its main points, that "being bullied is good for you" and "bullies are victims", certainly isn't mainstream.  If someone has some references to cite on this, go ahead and add it.  --A D Monroe III 09:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

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

message: I'm aware that "bullycide" is a term used by the mainstream media to describe a suicide in reaction to bullying.  I'm not suggesting that it be removed from the article, but I wanted to rant: "bullycide" is a stupid, stupid word.  The prefix indicates who has been killed: therefore, bullycide is killing a bully.  Again, just a rant. TomTheHand 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The prefix refers to who has been killed, not who caused the death.  Two examples: regicide means king-killing, and fratricide means brother-killing.  Suicide means self-killing and homicide means person-killing (the most general of the terms).  Use of the word "bullycide" to refer to a death caused by bullying, whether a suicide or a bully-perpetrated homicide, is silly. TomTheHand 01:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about pesticide instead?  ;)  At least it's a real word.  "Bullycide" is a confusing neologism; it needs to go.  --A D Monroe III 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to say that it needs to go.  It seems to be a "real" word, actually used by the media and by "bullying experts."  I feel it does belong in the article, but I just wanted to rant that these "bullying experts" probably didn't pay enough attention in English and/or Latin class ;-) TomTheHand 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll conceed that the word is ill-constructed.  BTW, it was coined in the book "Bullycide: Death at Playtime,"  which uses the term to describe suicide caused by bullying.  When others started using the word, it's meaning expanded to include homicides and accidents caused by bullies. --Rebekah Zinn 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bullycide" rant 

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

message: A few months ago, a woman (a sociologist, I believe.  I can't think of her name off hand though) came on the Daily Show as one of Jon's guests stating that there were in fact, some benefits of bullying.  She mainly argued that school based anti-bully initiatives would have the detrimental effect of not honing a child's competition skills.  She pointed to one school district which banned the game of tag in favor of a new game called "Circle of Friends."  Anyway, if anybody knows more about this, I think it could be a useful addition to the article.--Jsonitsac 06:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further research I found her name was Christina Hoff Sommers--Jsonitsac 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Benefits of Bullying

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

message: I have deleted the external link to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/work-bully-support as it is a rogue group. The original true group is at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/workbully-support/
The group "workbully-support" was founded in 2000 by Andy whose website http://www.workplacebullying.co.uk has a link to this group. He has been owner of this group for most of that time. However recently things got out of control and one of the five moderators, due to hypervigilance thought he was doing everyone a favour by deleting the group completely. He thought there was problem with the group administration that didnt exist. He deleted the group without permission or knowledge of the other four moderators or the group owner. He intended to immediately recreate the group with himself as the owner but Yahoo does not allow recreation of groups at short notice. He then started a new group with a similar name "work-bully-support" and made out that it was really just the old group implying that it had to be restarted afresh because of a technical reason.
Six years of posts were lost and I have now managed to recreate the original "workbully-support" group from scratch.
--Penbat 16:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogue work-bully-support group link 

message: I have removed the following section, in the absence of any verifiable cites given for its contents:
:The bully is generally a coward, or, at any rate, will typically be found to be behaving in a cowardly manner. Typically, the bully will only pick conflicts which he knows in advance he can win (where the victim is weaker than the bully; or the victim will be outnumbered by the bully and his pals; or the method used will avoid the victim being able to fight back). The bully avoids fair fights. 
Although this is a comforting stereotype ("stand up to them, and they will crumble") is there any verifiable evidence available that supports this view? I have certainly encountered bullies who were not cowards. -- The Anome 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unreferenced section 

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

message: I cut the following paragraph (diff). It made a sudden switch from bullying by school peers (a commonly acknowledged form of bullying) to bullying by school authorities, notably teachers. I'm not sure it belongs under Bully at all -- it really seems personal rant, and wanders from the topic -- but since it survived more than a month without being cut, I want more eyes to review it for potential salvage.
Bullying in schools (or other institutions of higher education) may also take the form of reduced grading, non-return of assignments, segregation of competent students by incompetent/non-performing teachers, for example, to protect the reputation of a college. This is so that their programmes and internal code of conduct are never questioned, and that parents (usually the ones paying the fees), are made to believe that their children are unable to cope with the course. Typically, these attitudes serve to create the unwritten policy of 'if you're stupid, you don't deserve feedback. if you're good, you don't need it.' Frequently, such institutions (usually in Asian countries) run a franchise programme with foreign (usually Western) institutions with the clause that foreign partners have no say in local grading or codes of conduct of staff involved on the local end. It serves to create a class of 'educated fools', people with degrees who have not learned to adapt to situations and create solutions by asking the right questions and solving problems.  edgarde 04:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  by teachers 

message: Please state your opinion on whether or not the Workplace bullying article should be merged here?--Zeraeph 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree. --Sampi/€ 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. Since so much time in life is spent at work, it makes sense that a kind of relation at work would be complex enough to justify its own article.  Don't merge it.  --DarkAdonis255 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Workplace bullying]]

message: Merging
======='''
I think the page should be merged with workplace bullying.  Also I think that there should be some structure to the page and Workplace Bullying should be a sub heading.  There is so much similarity between Mobbing, and Bullying that we ought to be thinking about pseudonyms.  Bullying, AKA Mobbing for example.  
-----
I disagree - mobbing is not a pseudonym for bullying. Bullying is one individual engaging in hostile activity toward another. Mobbing is when the bully involves a group in his attacks. Slandering the target to co-workers and management, for example. Coercing others to join in the bullying creates the toxic GROUP dynamic known as mobbing. This distinction has become blurred enough, don't add to the confusion. - webmaster mobbing.ca (http://mobbing.ca)
Military Section
================'''
As far as the removal of the military section goes, then I see this as workplace bullying with the introduction of the malicious use of rank and corporal punishment by the perpetrator.  I am a bit miffed as to why this section was removed when several attempts had been made recently to improve it.  
KISS
===='''
Like other pages, this one needs to be succinct and contain links.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dixx (talk • contribs) .
:Dixx, how would you feel about also simplifying and merging cyber-bullying? 
:Incidentally, I am a bit puzzled by the removal of the Military Section too? 
:Dixx added - IMHO Cyber Bullying is bullying using a delivery tool.  The deletion of the section on military bullying was a serious ommission.  Incidentally, also IMHO military bullies have an array of tools similar to workplace bullies, rank (promotion prospects, demotion opportunities, recourse to bigger bullies etc) also a range of punishments, from field punshments to right the way up to summary execution etc.
:I don't think mobbing and bullying are the same thing, but I can see how mobbing could be considered a subsection of Bullying? Might take out a lot of duplication between the articles? --Zeraeph 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific discussion I know is that there some authors see I difference between bullying and mobbing and others don't. The problem is that the term mobbing was used by Konrad Lorenz for animal behaviour. In Sweden the term mobbing (or mobbning) was taken up and used for human behavior first. Then the concept of mobbing was expanded by Swedish everyday language for negative behaviour by one against others. Later when the concept was internationalised, some researchers refered to mobbing as mobbing. Others who think that the term mobbing is cumbersome use mobbing (especially in English speaking Europe). In Ireland and UK, the term bullying refers even to a generally autoritarian leadership style, what is not usually considered as mobbing on the European continent. Due to the history of the terms bullying and mobbing, it's difficult to grasp the demarcation of each term. --Sampi/€ 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, mobbing usually refers to workplace bullying (sometimes to childhood bullying). Merging mobbing with workplace bullying would be better, although it would cause some problems. Merging the parts of workplace mobbing with workplace bullying should work. Merging bullying and workplace bullying is probably not the best idea because the articles are too long. --Sampi/€ 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging et al. 

message: Gretchen Grundler seemed quite friendly. the biggest bullies on Third Street School's playground are: Spinelli; Erwin Lawson; Gelman; King Bob; Clyde; & the Kowalski Brothers Chris 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Recess (1997) is a cartoon show on TV (1997-2001). I haven't seen it, but there is character called "Gretchen Grundler". The contribution seems to be no fake. --Sampi/€ 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen Recess. I've never seen Gretchen bullying other kids. Chris 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional Bullies?

message: Well all I can say is WHOOPS!!
Whoever you are 202.89.186.175 I certainly never meant it to sound that way (I broke up a "run on" sentence and forgot that "cut the cord" to "Some people..." at the beginning of the paragraph) and I MUCH prefer your edit...thanks for catching it!--Zeraeph 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove "Professionally added propaganda"

message: I agree with the above commenter about this coinage being awkward. Not only that but I keep seeing the topic recurring as one of the only forms of death that happens as a result of bullying. It doesn't take into consideration all the murders committed at the hands of students and peers from what I can tell, only the suicides caused by teasing. I realize that such murders would be murders and not mere bullying but there doesn't seem to be a suitable word or reference to the topic since bullying can escalate into homicide by peers.
The bullycide article could probably make use of the bullycide miscoinage. As for children killing children, is there a proper term like -cide. http://www.fun-with-words.com/cide_words.html didn't list anything useful. Homicide is pretty general. Parvulus (child but not sure the usage or context) + cide could be parvulicide. But peer would be a better word (albeit I can't find any Latin for it) than child as adults can be bullied of course as well and this captures it a bit more accurately.
Anyhow, I know this isn't a place to promote a new theory or coinage but I think some more dealing with that possibility in the topic would be in order. 
(By the way, I'm new to mediawiki so forgive my lack of formatting expertise, still on the bottom of the learning curve).
Johngagon 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullycide

message: I wonder if the types of bullying section could be improved by adding actual cases of bullying as examples.Rich 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky...because all you could use and be NPOV would be summaries of transcripts (personal experience would be "original research"), properly cited and I don't see how you could include enough detail to make it valid without the article growing to immense proportions? --Zeraeph 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Although it may seem like a good idea, we would have problems prevening no original research being used. I personaly don't think that NPOV would be an issue as long as the examples are given without commentary (which would again mostly be POV). The biggest problem is that individual bullying episodes tend to be poorly documented, more normally only coming to light after the bullying has become connstant and no one episode is then detailed. I'd like to say that I'm rather happy bullying has been included under articles relating to abuse, that made me happy :) LinaMishima 12:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There is a lot of good material in this Bully topic. However some things can be improved upon. I would be more than happy to engage in constructive input on Bullying and related topic such as NPD, and talk it through with you all. I believe I have an excellent insight into Bullying.  My involvement is conditional on absolutely no future involvement from Zeraeph.
--Penbat 11:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greetings

message: I am not certain who created this topic with the title of Bully, rather than Bullying, but it is way past time to get this topic moved to the other page.  
Here is what I have to substantiate my thought processes
* The TOPIC is bullying rather than a focus on only one side of what is a 2-part (or multi-part) dynamic.  What?  should there be a separate topic for "Victims of Bullies"?  Of course not.    It would be like having two topics for Rape - Rapist and Rape Victim.  
* The ABUSE CATAGORY topic-linking box at the top of the page does not specify Bully (a noun describing the perpetrator/instigator in the dynamic -or- a verb to describe certain types of abusive behavior with a particular specific goal)
Instead, the ABUSE CATEGORY topic-linking box DOES specifies Bullying  (a noun naming the FORM OF ABUSE dealt with or a verb denoting the ACT/ACTIONS of this type of abuse, ie Bullying)
* The word Bully is linked, at the top of the page, to the disambiguation page for Bully (disambiguation).   If the topic were (correctly) Bullying, there would be no ambiguity about what the topic is. 
Currently, if you click on Bullying it brings you to this page without a halt.  The disambiguation page would, of course, contine to link to this topic, as before.
It is my opinion that the Bully (disambiguation) needs to be the primary bully page, and this entire Topic moved, in toto, to the currently unused Bullying pages.  
Comments? - I am Kiwi 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed.  There are a lot of articles linking to the page Bully, which is now a redirect. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow! Good work, Penbat.  I didn't know anything about how to accomplish a move to a new page/name.  Thanks Bacchus -I am Kiwi 00:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue: Topic Title is Poor Choice