Talk:Mobbing

message: What about organized Mobbing?  (i.e. The type of mobbing that leverages the art
of "bad-jacketing" parents and/or children to isolate them?) The only people that deny
this are those, very high in the community, that leverage the power of the mob.
The comment at the bottom speaks legions as to the accuracy of this article; the essense
of the deliberate and insidious leveraging of group psychology will remain a secret; at least in this location and the term "Bullying" will continue to hide this despicable behavior practiced
by the self annointed "Leaders
--------------------------------------------------------------------  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.146.227 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about organized Mobbing?

message: Confusingly Leymann referred to any workplace bullying as mobbing. This use of the word mobbing is still in common use today in the US and Canada. This useage is not explained properly here.--Penbat 10:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be an option to have information on the origin of the term mobbing. The term mobbing was used in Sweden and translated back to English as Workplace Bullying because the term mobbing was considered cumbersome. --Sampi/€ 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to be that the false friend (coined by an Austrian and a German/Swede) has come back to English. E.g. the cited book Mobbing. Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace also defines mobbing as any kind of workplace harassment, be it by a "mob", a superior or a single coworker.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.57.16 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I certainly would agree that all workplace bullying is not mobbing.  Also, though,not all mobbing occurs in the workplace. I find it incomprehensible to minimize the defined practice of mobbing to the workplace context.  If the source of the newer meaning is derived from the activity of birds, then I assume that this behavior isn't uniquely-defined as having to do with birds who live in (operating or abandoned) office buildings.  I think that the Zersetzung of the Stasi example clearly shows that such behavior has historically not been prone to relegate itself to a particular setting. (Respectfully)  --Exonerated torturee  —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Mobbing v Workplace Bullying

message: I have provided reasons for my changes. I don't think that one should revert without discussion or reasons. In my opinion, the weblinks were lousy (not better than a google random search). There is an article on Heinz Leymann, which was identical. Btw, some information on Leymann is just wrong. For instance, the term mobbing among humans was introduced by P.P. Heinemann who dealed basically with bullying among children. Furthermore, the statement on movies is useless, I think, because there are movies about almost everything. --Sampi/€ 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes reverted?

message: It is significant that Heinz Leymann discovered that mobbing can lead to PTSD among victims, as there is a growing evidence that long-term exposure to non-life-threatening trauma can lead to psychological injury not unlike war-related PTSD.  This is a change that is being considered by the APA for the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders.
:That's true, and it can be read in the article on Heinz Leymann (there is no need to state everything twice). Other information is wrong. At the time, when Leymann used the term mobbing, it was widely used in Sweden for 15 years. As I told you before, it was Heinemann who borrowed the term mobbing from Lorenz, not Leymann, already in the late 60s (e. g. Heinemann, 1972, p. 9). Nevertheless, I don't deny that Leymann was a pinoneer among the research of workplace bullying or workplace mobbing (Leymann himself writes that bullying and mobbing can be used interchangable; source: Zapf & Leymann, 1996, p. 162). It is also true that it was much up to Leymann to introduce the term mobbing for human behaviour. Due to his efforts, mobbing refers to this kind of harassment or bullying in several European languages. "Mobbing is also found in our school systems and this too was discovered by Dr. Heinz Leymann" is not true either. Yes, mobbing in school (Leymann prefers the term "Bullying" in this context) exists. However, there was already more than one decade of research on bullying on schools, when Leymann enter the field of mobbing research, plus Leymann did never research on mobbing in school. Leymann founded a clinic to cure mobbing victims. The clinic was closed because of problems with the despotic personality of Leymann. The project failed. Therefore, it's wrong that he successfully treated thousends of people. He wanted, but he unable. Okay, much is wrong. Anyway, the main point is that there is already an article on Leymann. We don't need redudancy. Additionally, I haven't seen any argument for the quality of the weblinks and for the necessety on the movie issue. --Sampi/€ 09:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was far worse than that...almost the entire article seems to be opinion, conjecture and hyperbole. Think this article needs CPR at present. Still there were a couple of links that seem good if you get to the relevant pages. More work later --Zeraeph 12:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes reverted

message: I think we need to be cognizant that English is the universal language, and that many persons from other countries are multi-lingual, and more and more likely to have English as their primary second language.  We must pause to reflect that many of our Wiki editors here have a native language other than English.  We can only expect that "foreigners" will make themselves welcome here.  Not every country or language has its own full-fledged Wikipedia.
It is presuming to decide for Wikipedia readers as to whether or not they should be able to find resources in their own countries or in other languages in which they are fluent. If this is against policy, please link the Wiki page that details that all foreign language links must be removed. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminate foreign language links at Wikipedia?

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 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops, I Thought the Troll Was Gone 

message: In a different sense, it is a criminal offence in Scotland. This different sense is not explained here or in Scots law. --Espoo (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots law 

message: I write this article frustrated. While in my line of work and research, I have witnessed some accounts of mobbing on good individuals, many times woman. All of them were innocent fof the wrongdoing the mobbers perceived. Some of the mobbers were Christian, drug attics, mentally challenged, or violent. I write this artice hoping to wake up people in denial about mobbers and their violent and insane motives.
Some of the reactions that victims could have toward mobbers and groups of mobbers are listed below:
1. A single victim, skilled in guns and martial arts, could take out an M-16 on a crowd of mobbers. I've heard this spoken about amongst some drug dealers I heard when I was working in a drug rehab clinic. Also, such a type of situation has already happened in an affluent community where people regularly single out people from other areas who are not rich and like them. Unfortunately, they picked one individual from a low income community to mob, and this individual was attempting to start a new job in a affluent community where his new job was at. He was mobbed, then took an M-16 or some assault rifle, and he killed several people who he knew to be spreading bad rumors about him, which these rumors were destroying a good job he really needed to support his wife and kid AND - the rumors were wrong. The mobbers just didn't like his low income status.
Many gifted, talented, and intelligent people will be discriminated against by narrow minded individuals who think they look 'weird' or 'are bad because they look different', or they are 'single and stalking their children'.  Many times, when townspeople think these types of things about certain individual's, they are wrong. As they mob and annoy the individual, the person could really be a local brain surgeon or higher up of some type, or a clergy member. Mobbers are paranoid, frightened, inferiors.
2. A group of mobbers could mob the wrong person such as, a Mafia member, an unstable FBI Agent,a gang member, a serial killer, or a psychotic individual with guns. Such a person could also kill -on the spot - ignorant mobbers. So, if mobbers think they are going to have fun mobbing someone, maybe not. 
There are many ways some violent or completely enraged victims may get back at their mobbers such as,
1. Filtering a lethal gas into their homes and cars, burning down their homes, or blowing up their cars.
2. Mobbing back with a much more larger or more seriously deranged group of people who will bypass law enforcment and stop mobbers themselves.
2. Being passive aggressive back such as, secretly destroying mobbers jobs, homes, and lives behind the mobbers backs who will not even know whose doing it.
3. Worst of all: A single, deranged person, or group of people, could take out an m-16, 9MM, or assault rifle on mobbers.
Mobbers should stop their mobbing, because many of times, they are 
1. Wrong about the person they are mobbing, and often, its done because they are imagining the victim has done something wrong, or they have an immature jealousy/hatred problem that's gone completely out of control, and probably requires medical attention. There are drugs for such borderline individuals that will stalk and mob those they feel inferior to or are paranoid of.
For example, one ignorant fellow on my block thought someonen was an FBI Agent because they appeared to be an FBI Agent, and gathering all his bully crew against the person, the person was murdered. It was found out later, that the person was just a Janitor who dressed well.
2. Mobbers are members of hate groups who think they are going to resolve a situation of those they think should be hated, but all they do is put themselves in danger, and eventually are mobbed in return.
What I think personally should be done to mobbers: Mobbers need to get psychiatric treatment before they are physically harmed, or harm someone else, as a result of their twisted control issues. Analyzing the behavior and motives of mobbers, I'd say they are a danger to themselves and others. This being said, mobbers should be evaluated and treated for their various OCD and Psychotic problems. They have too serious of hate and ideation issues [paranoid ideation, psychotic encumbrances, etc.] going on and need help. Many mobbers become mobbers, because they have associated with individuals who will agree with them on their hate issues and psychotic ideas. Thus such an disturbed association of friends, will become a mob.  Mobbers need to consider the serious consequences of their mobbing, especially when there is now equipment to track them down should they set up surveillance equipment and make rude phone calls to their, often innocent, victims.
For hate mongerers:
It's not the person who looks weird walking down the street, or the one who is of a race you think is bad, or the woman who didn't want you, who should be mobbed or destroyed, it's you, and many people are now aware of mobbers and their tricks, and many intelligent people just won't put up with it. Mobbers are considered to be a group of violent mentally ill offenders in my line of work. It doesn't matter what the mobbers reasons are. For example, here's another situation I encountered of a professional woman, unmarried, but extremely moral. Not a sleep around, druggie, or bad person, but Christians thought she had sinned when she stopped going to church to attend her career. She was mobbed, nearly had a nervous breakdown, and had to leave the small community she had lived in. I have seen this happen repeatedly. A good looking, career woman goes to church, donates to the charities, and is not even a whore or drug attic of any kind, in some small, ignorant minded community. So, this poor single woman stopped the church because of the irrational expectations of the ministry, which were not goals she had planned for herself such as marriage, pregnancy, but I guess the ministry thought she should stop her current goals and get married and pregnant. So, she stopped attending such a narrow minded congregation. But, here she was, the same good person,moral, and intelligent, and helping many indigent people in the counties clinics. And, the irrational Christians started mobbing her. They began telling lies about her in the community after realizing she was not going to marry any of the  men at the church [she had been receiving pressure to get pregnant since the Christians thought this was her duty in life, and I won't go on, but it does get sicker]. telling the bad people in the neighborhood that she was making narc reports on them, which she wasn't, standing outside her home waiting for her to come out, annoying her with noise at all hours around her home, staring at her, stalking her to her mailbox, and all sorts of disturbances from people the Christians had pit on her.  Basically, the  mobbing Christians were stopped by law enforcement. They got nowhere with their mobbing. As they mobbed, law enforcement and other people in higher law enforcement agencies were put on notice. So, as the mobbers thought she was making narc reports, sinning, and doing bad things to them, I guess after the mobbers got on her case for such false allegations, then she did make police reports on them. So, mobbers are ignorant, unstable, and inferior individuals who can either improve themselves or put themselves away if they are so disturbed by others who are better than them.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section requiring cleanup 

message: Active Banana you are completely missing the point. I recently successfully got List of books on bullying deleted see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_on_bullying in the same way as List of fictional bullies and i considered it to be POV and OR. Unless any such list is put together by a recognized authority, such a list is bound to be POV and OR.
My "mobbing in films" list is far superior to things like Category:Films about dysfunctional families to which any uninformed editor can add to the list and is bound to end up completely POV and OR. Not only is Kenneth Westhues probably the world's leading expert on mobbing, he must the best possible placed person to compile such a list and he developed it over a long period of time. In addition, in the link given, Westhues specifically explains how each individual film illustrates mobbing. The example films given would be very useful to a lay reader of the mobbing article to give examples of mobbing in an otherwise generally fairly dry article. In fact it creates an excellent synergy on both directions to and from individual film articles. --Penbat (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not addressed my concern at all. What is the encyclopedic content of "Dr. X says these films have representations of my definition of 'mobbing'" ?  I see nothing appropriate for a full section in THIS article. So what if other things might be WORSE, this still is not worthy. Active Banana (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I am growing more and more doubtful that there is any place for this material in the encyclopedia.  The article already links to Kenneth Westhues, from which people can click directly to his article on "Film Depictions of Ganging Up."  I'm not seeing a lot of third-party coverage of this "mobbing in films" theory that would justify transcribing this material directly into Wikipedia. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Active Banana 

message: Sociologist Kenneth Westhues devised the following list of mobbing indicators, with indicator number 12 probably being the most important:Westhues K. Checklist of Mobbing Indicators, 2006 http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/checklist.htm
# By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
# Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
# The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
# Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is”.
# Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson”.
# Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
# Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
# Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
# High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
# Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for” or defend the target.
# The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
# The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
# Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
# Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
# Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
# Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both.
::Reflist for 'Westhues's checklist of mobbing indicators' 
:::
Quit reinserting the list into the article. You have not provided sufficient support to meet the challenges rasied. Active Banana  (bananaphone 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Westhues's checklist of mobbing indicators

message: having a random list of films and tv shows that have scenes that someone considers mobbing is not encyclopedic. As you pointed out in your edit summary, that very source lists dozens - what makes the two you chose from that list worthy of special mention and not the others? Active Banana  (bananaphone 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same issue that has been going on for months? Doniago (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  listcruft - just because something //can// be sourced does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article 

message: There is no mention of this possible outcome which is unrelated to the condition but will lead to its cessation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.193.34 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Outcome : Company Closure or Large Scale Redundancies

message: Charivari links to this article, suggest reciprocal link to make the article more complete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.4.40 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of links : Charivari 

message: It would be good if this article had a section on "mobbing on the internet". However, I don't know enough about it and therefore I cannot write it. Lova Falk talk 12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an entire article on Cyberbullying.  If the Mobbing article were many times longer than it is now, I could see possibly having a short subsection about Cyberbullying of a couple of sentences, preceded by a  template pointing to the Cyberbullying article.  However, as this article is quite short, and is pretty much restricted to Workplace bullying, or possibly including schoolyard bullying but in any case, "live" or in-person bullying exclusively, the concept of internet bullying seems related but off-topic, hence belongs most properly in the See also section, where it already is.  I don't think anything further needs to be done here about cyberbullying. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 October 2012 

message: The following material has long been unreferenced and is either WP:OR or can be returned to the article once you have provided a suitable citation for it:
"==Etymology==
Though the English word mob denotes a crowd, often in a destructive or hostile mood, German, Spanish, Polish, Italian and several other European languages have adopted mobbing as a loanword to describe all forms of bullying including that by single persons. The resultant German verb mobben can also be used for physical attacks, calumny against teachers on the internet and intimidation by superiors, with an emphasis on the victims' continuous fear rather than the perpetrators' will to exclude them. The word may thus be a false friend in translation back into English, where mobbing in its primary sense denotes a disorderly gathering by a crowd and in workplace psychology narrowly refers to "ganging up" by others to harass and intimidate an individual."
Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not terribly wonderful leaving unsourced invisible text in articles... could I guess leave a comment in there pointing at this (not ideal either). The right answer is to find decent sources, but you knew that already.  And to be honest I can't really see why the whole article isn't merged to Bullying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Mobbing' clearly has some other meanings different from bullying.Malick78 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, maybe this could just be put into the bullying article. I withdraw my objection.Malick78 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: Please see Talk:Bullying for merge discussion - please do not add text here. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The original characteristic of mobbing victims, taken from the cited article about Westhues, reads as follows: "Belonging to a discipline with ambiguous standards and objectives, especially those (like music or literature) most affected by post-modern scholarship". This is not the same thing as saying that music and literature ARE post-modern fields. The statement in the Wikipedia article (ironically, given that misunderstanding of such scholarship is the very problem Westhues is discussing) shows a certain ignorance about what post-modernism is and how it "affects" the humanities. Music and literature are not "post-modern" fields. There really is no such thing as a "post-modern field". There are only fields. Recently some fields in the humanities have been greatly influenced by the insights of poststructuralist philosophers and psychoanalysts and postmodern aesthetic theory, which many consider the philosophical foundation for contemporary orthodoxy on gender, race, class as it is studied in literature classes. Recent developments in music also, according to music scholars, reflect a general turning in dominant aesthetic trends since possibly as early as the end of World War II, a trend now commonly labeled postmodernism. I have edited the line in the article, not to make it conform with my own view of humanities scholarship, but to remove the distortion  of Westhues' view and to make the feature as cited in the Wikipedia article more in line with the original sentiment expressed in the original source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.38.32.4 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  music and literature as "post-modern" fields 

message: The article is currently written in a mish-mash of British and American English.  The history of the article shows that the original started off in AE, and by the end of day two it was already a mix of the two.  It's probably more AE than BE at this point.
WP Guidelines about style and consistency strongly suggest that articles should pick one variety of English, and stick to it, unless there are strong ties to a particular country.
I don't have a strong opinion about which one it should be.  I believe that at one time, there may have been a slight argument in favor of British English as this whole concept of mobbing arose from professional non-native European speakers writing in British English for publication, as ESL as taught in Europe tends to favor (favour?) British English.  But the term has since crossed the Atlantic, with some American professionals (though not the general public) have begun to adopt the term in academic publications, and in any case, the concept itself has no country. For that reason, I don't think MOS:TIES applies here (as it would for Chicago fire or Tower of London for example), so it's kind of a toss-up.  If there's a trend of support for one or the other, I'd just go with the majority.  Maybe it should just depend on a count of how many changes would have to be made, how many "behaviour" words to change to AE, or how many AE "<some verb>-ized" to BE "-ise".
Once a decision is made, the top of the article page should contain the template  or , and we should add  to the top of this Talk page if BE is the choice (I'm not sure if there is an equivalent banner for AE or not).  Opinions needed, please discuss. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  American or British English? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mobbing. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185410/http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/2007/05/13/workplace-bullying-in-the-academic-world/ to http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/2007/05/13/workplace-bullying-in-the-academic-world/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122000546/http://www.workplacemobbing.com/Papers.html to http://www.workplacemobbing.com/Papers.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mobbing. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509035009/http://www.innovations-training.com/0804CP_Article4.pdf to http://www.innovations-training.com/0804CP_Article4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mobbing. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713045605/http://www.lindas.internetbasedfamily.com/f/SHALLCROSS_LINDA1.pdf to http://www.lindas.internetbasedfamily.com/f/SHALLCROSS_LINDA1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The redirect Angry mob 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  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Angry mob]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]