Talk:Workplace bullying/Archive 1

message: I've found a link describing some potential targets of workplace bullying, and added this link to the "References" section. However, I'm not sure if the victims are 50% male and 50% female, as I always thought that women are more likely to be harassed in the workplace. I would think that the victim's and the bully's personality always sharply contrast each other, but then again there is a possibilty that the bully is much like the victim, e.g. to defend his/her "uniqueness" or his/her competency.
::Wrote rather snotty edit summary before I realise you had provided a reference...sorry... 
::But I am afraid that reference doesn't hack it. It's apparently "original research" or an opinion piece that does not cite it's sources. 
::The author, Gary Namie, seems bona fide...but even I know the things he is say in this piece are hotly contested by experts...
::It's a tough one to call...maybe we could give some time between us to finding a few sources to have some balence? --Zeraeph 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, I found another stat last night for gender of bullies - 58% being female.  I went ahead and added this to the article because it was right there ;) It's also still a majority.  I'll dig up the other stats (as they represent an international view) and add them later on. Aine63 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed some of the "Who Gets Targeted by Bullies?" [citation needed] tags 

message: Links to sources for the article should be placed immediately after the points they are supporting. If the source is a book, the author, title, publisher, and date published should be added to the "References" section at the bottom, and the last name of the author and date of publication in parentheses next to the point being made. For example, (LastNameofAuthor, 1990) should be placed after the information taken from this source.  Aine63 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing sources

message: While there are references at the end, little of this article is cited, so it's ludicrous to delete one small section, the info in which is very valid, except for the gender stats--most workplace bullies are female, and most bullying targets are female.  Someone needs to go through the entire piece and add citations, or start from scratch.  Aine63 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The deleted section on "who gets bullied"

message: This article still needs lots of citation work. For an article this length, footnotes seem a necessity.  I know that a lot of the valid research into this topic is fairly new (except in the UK) and most of what is available is just in journals, not books, but it needs to be looked up anyway.  Does anyone dropping by live near a university?  Does anyone live in the UK?
I live in the UK and am willing to contribute just as long as Zeraeph doesnt start interferring like she did on the Wiki Bully topic. She is currently under suspension. Tim Field (who recently died) is in the UK and was a pioneering anti-bully guru. His book "Bully In Sight" is extremely rich with insightful material. His website is www.bullyonline.org. On that website are carefully documented anecdotal case study accounts of about 100 bully victims who Tim Field personally helped. His work is extremely insightful and based mainly on detailed anecdotal information and his own experiences. 
Also of particular interest is "Snakes in Suits - The Psychopath at Work" by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare. Robert Hare is the world's leading psychopath guru. 
It is important to consider workplace bullying in terms of recognised psychiatric conditions (psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder etc). 
One thing Tim Field mentions in his book "Bully In Sight" is that asertiveness training may be helpful in reducing the chances of getting bullied. "Bully In Sight" is the closest there is to a workplace bullying bible even though it was published in 1996. Understanding of the subject has moved on a bit in some respects - his website www.bullyonline.org takes some things a bit further. He was also half way through a  new anti-bullying book when he died - this may yet be published in the next 12 months.
I think Tim Field's work is less politically correct and sanitised than Garry Namie's work (he is the leading US anti-bully guru). 
--Penbat 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Still Lacking 

message: The opening paragraphs contained a summary of the legal situation in the USA. To this I have added a short summary of the legal situation in the UK, and cited references!  In the US section, the statement "Court action based on workplace bullying is problematic at best." sounds very personal and subjective. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the US legal system and bullying cases could offer an improvement? Justdignity 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of workplace bullying 

message: I think Tim Field, for one, fully deserves his own Wiki entry. I notice that Robert Hare already has his own but it could be expanded. --Penbat 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that his books justify separate project pages. - I am Kiwi 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate Wiki entries for each Anti-Bully Pioneer

message: I have just created this new section. It is very important but is difficult to do. Please be gentle as it needs careful nurturing. It may take a long time to get it written properly. Citations will be included. An equivalent section will need to be written in the main Bullying Wiki. --Penbat 09:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychopathology of Workplace Bullying

message: When it's more "how-to" than a true encyclopedia-type entry, then it doesn't really fit on Wikipedia.  When I saw advice to someone compiling a lot of how-to about baseball, I thought it might fit into Wikibooks, but I see that books get deleted regularly if it is felt they "don't fit" -- Topics that fall outside the "generally accepted" non-controversial material.
The better option (maybe the only option) is to use a free software like Open_Office to create a stand-alone .pdf book.  It could include examples from real life, different ways that different people might do the same thing, links to support groups, informative websites, etc.  It could be uploaded to a yahoogroups' or msngroups' files section (among other places) where it could be stored online for free and accessible to many downloads.  
This complete and permanent record could be a compilation of what is most needed for recovery.  Perhaps an entire set of books eventually for bullying with various chapters - addressing Childhood/School bullying, workplace bullying, webplace bullying, bullying in the non-profit sector.  This wil be a really great way for all this to be recorded and not vulnerable to being deleted/edited away here at Wiki.  
I could even see it being a project that you could suggest at BullyOnline or its companion group.  Groups dealing with other kinds of bullying could be put in charge of writing the other books.  It is an excellent idea and they can all be linked still to Wiki, too. -I am Kiwi 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Answer 

message: This appears to come from one source (possibly Dr Namie's research). It falls short of WIKI standards in two ways: (1) simple - Using headings as links; (2) less straightforward - not citing sources. The content appears largely relevant and aligned with what I understand about workplace bullying, but could do with an introduction to explain why THESE tactics are common, how common they are, and references to sources. It also needs rationalising, categorising and extending. The tactics appear to focus on phase 1 bullying (as Field would call it, i.e. pre-complaint). Corporate response to complaints of bullying is not included. Justdignity 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is only fair to try and contact Gary Namie and try to get his input on the whole wiki. Incidnetally this "Workplace Bullying and Trauma Institute" just sounds like spin to me. It conjours up visions of a huge university with hoards of boffins running around when really it could just be 1 man in an office. --Penbat 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you had only decided to write about Classical Architecture instead of an abusive syndrome of the personality disordered, then you would have all the easy citations you wanted!  It is a tall order, I know.  But some of the veterans on the support forums are researchers and authors or are in contact with various professionals in this fledgling field, and they might be willing to help in little ways that won't overtax them.   Just tell them all up front that all sources and citations must pass Wiki standards.  This is the beauty of Wiki and multi-editing.  No one person is saddled with Herculean tasks. - I am Kiwi 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common tactics of bullying 

message: There must have been dozens of surveys done into prevalence of workplace bullying. Some one could summarise the results of, say, three different comprehensive surveys. Each survey can be cited. --Penbat 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with the field of work place bullying research. Usually, there is a theory, when it's about statistics (e. g. gender aspects). Therefore, I think that there should be sections on issues like "Prevalence", "Impact on the target" or gender. --Sampi/€ 13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics Section 

message: I just put in a lot of them. Please understand these are not criticisms of the text, just requests for appropriate references in accord with WP:SOURCE, WP:RS and WP:OR. 
Medical related sections must be stringently sourced to published, medical/academic work. There is one interesting piece that, though, apparently, published appropriately, actually cites a blog instead of the publication, which is a shame. It's ok to link to the blog, but the published source must be cited too.
There is really no excuse for not citing sources in legal sections, they are easy enough to find, I'll try to chase them myself when I have time. 
If anyone wants to put citations in as links in text (or in brackets where there are no links) I will transform them into inline ciations as soon as I can. --Zeraeph 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for Citations 

message: The template on this topic page is not just for bullying, but for all forms of abuse and includes the abuse of children, police brutality and human experimentation.  
Mobbing was the first revolutionary discovery regarding workplace bullying by a researcher (in outside links on topic page).  It remains a singularly vital factor in the understanding of and detection of workplace bullying.  In the template, there is no indication of this, and thus deserves its own link.  
Respectfully, inclusion on a category template does not negate  being pointed out as of particular relevance to the topic at hand.   --Kiwi
::I agree with you totally about the relevance of Mobbing, however it is already linked in the article, from the introduction, and from the abuse template on top right, a third link in "see also" is considered excessive. A Wikipedia article is not a link directory. I hope this helps. --Zeraeph 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I have submitted this query to clarify the matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Internal_Link_to_article_query shall we abide by the response? --Zeraeph 23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad to find that the rule of thumb is no more than one link to each topic section, rather than no more than one in the actual article. Thank you for seeking the Help Desk to make the ruling and make it final. --I am Kiwi 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary of Relevance of Mobbing Link

message: Zeraeph, I decided to glance at the "List of books" link and was quite impressed with how attractive and usable the page is.  You have done a lovely job.  Wonderful of you to think of doing this.  Kudos!  --I am Kiwi 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but I am afraid I didn't do anything but combine two existing booklists that were getting too big for the articles and seemed too good to prune. --Zeraeph 08:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was so attractive and easy to find things.  I was unaware of book pages and was so pleased at how great it turned out.  Since the book lists in the various categories were offered to persons of all categories.  I think it is a brilliant idea.  I was very glad that you kept us from having to preform a hatchet job on the list. --Kiwi-- Green in learning mode 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommended Books Page For Bullying/Workplace Bullying

message: [quote]Unfortunately, whoever created it, the text I removed was unsuitable for an encyclopaedia ..snip.. should not be replaced at all without proper citations (in accord with WP:RS) and considerable revision. [/quote]
Well, what is done is done.  
Damage done is damage done.  
The losses are all of ours.   
-- Kiwi --Green in learning mode 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response

message: Thought it was safe to try to contribute to this article again. Obviously not. This article has been destroyed. What a waste of everyones time. I suppose it's only fitting that a bully would target this article.
Radyx 05:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funnily enough I was just looking up another subject on Wiki and thought I'd look to see if the article still existed. There isn't much left now but I am amazed to see that my contribution on 'Law in the UK' is still here and just about intact. See you all next year. Justdignity 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops, I Thought The Troll Was Gone