This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Does anybody else think that this passage is far too "passionate" for an encyclopaedic article?

"How do you deal with such bullies? You can call the police and report the behaviour, e.g. excessive noise at unreasonable hours, or continuous noise - councils have procedures for noise monitoring, but since the perpetrators have the 'right' to be told recordings might be taken, you may well go through this several times and fail to prove the nuisance, so getting no-where. You can report intimidation from staring, attacking your car, throwing dog faeces over the fence, threats, unlawfully entering your premises, etc. You can cite the Human Rights Act on your own behalf, but under current law, it is likely that bullies will be victorious. If they are hell-bent on their agenda of getting you out of your home, ultimately the law is on their side, supporting them - not on yours. Once they start this kind of behaviour, beware of the other neighbours, who often will side with them and refuse to help you as witnesses - let's face it, they don't want to become the next victims. If you can endure it, face them with as much dignity as you can muster. Refuse to be bowed by them, hold your head up, even when you are feeling terrified. Ignore them as much as humanly possible, even during an attack. If the attack is extreme, just walk away and immediately call the police. Keep a record of every incident, however minor, and log it with the police. Eventually the police will want the incidents to stop accumulating on their statistical log, so will have to come and do something about it. Just make sure you are in the right, and don't bow to the overwhelming pressure being levelled at you by the bullies. The police are often duped and sympathise with the bully, so don't necessarily expect any help from that quarter, but this is all that is currently available to you."

This passage just seems in such a different tone to the rest of the article.

Andy4226uk 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC) I concur. This article is written by an older person with something to prove. It cites no sources says information that is plain wrong, such as the "law favors young people". It was no place here.

Bullying is a very long topic, and unlike Workplace Bullying, it is wide-ranging -all over the map. When one goes online and looks for bully or bullying, the vast majority of all the websites available are directed only to child to child bullying in the grade school years (but not limited to the school environment, obviously).

There is a lot of research studies about Childhood Bullying , mainly driven by educators and child therapists, and also a lot of research about Workplace Bullying(mostly driven by medical/disabilty insurers, industry and businesses.

Thus, I would suggest that the topic of Childhood Bullying has enough specific research and documentation to stand independently. It would have its own sub-divisions obviously, ranging from lethal violence in schools, to the Bully computer game and the impact game playing influences behavior, to blogging and slam pages online, to how girls have a totally different way of bullying than do boys.

Bullying in childhood causes both severe depression, damaged self-esteem, isolation from social networks, and academic disruption and school dropouts. Related childhood suicide also needs to be documented. I know that a separate topic will have great participation of editors.

Additionally, there is a second totally different approach to stopping bullying that is having exceptonal success applied in the school environment that could be properly given equal recognition.

That would still leave the Bullying topic with a lot of subtopics here, from neighbor feuds to institutionalized bullying, military bullying, and about the psychology of the bully and the the victim, and the illnesses, disabilities, and other sometime lifelong effects that ensue. Also, there can be presentation of research and scholarly papers about bullying leaders and bullying nations.

Not that some of these subtopics might someday warrant their own topic bages, but at the present, I think they should maintain their consolidated status?

Comments? - I am Kiwi 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It only makes sense to me to have specific sub-topics on the individual bullying contexts such as school, workplace, family, military etc. I think the only way to do it is put a summary paragraph for each context and then a separate Wiki entry to describe each context in more detail, as has been done for example with Workplace Bullying. I dont think separating out childhood and adult bulling in the first instance is helpful. -- Penbat 09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to divide up what for some turns out to be a lifelong event. Bullying happens in schools, workplaces and families (http:\\www.successunlimited.co.uk) Therefore there are phases. Given the impact on the person and the current status, where blatantly criminal activities such as assault and psychological abuse can just be explained away as jokes, high spirits and other human activities, it is suggested that the topic of bullying remains intact.

Effort needs to be applied in schools for example, so that school children do not emerge into adulthood, (work, or family life for example) with bullying or victim characteristics.

One of the impacts of dividing up bullying into school or workplace is that all sympathy goes to children who are bullied, but effort is not given to resolving it in adult groups, because they are old enough to look after themselves. Clearly this does people a great dis-service, because the damage to adults is equally (and sometimes more) devastating as it is to children. For example resultant career destruction and the increased risk to health caused by that.

Also I question whether it is safe to divide the topic up into groups, such as academics, soldiers or politicians. Each group has its own set of rules, and tolerances and expectations are set, but the characteristics of bullying remain the same, as is the impact on the person.

- Dixx 08:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

i Dixx, fellow warrior! I certainly support your contention that internet, military, intra-family, institutionalized (teaching, nursing and volunteer work, hazing and s on), et al. I think it is vital for the reader to have a firm grasp of the vast range of people, environments and stimuli that foster the bully's strikes and engagement. I also think it vital for the reader to take away that while every human being is capable of bullying behavior, that it is a pattern of bullying built on a badly disordered personality that is the most danger to self and society. The serial bully is the very core of pathological malignant bullying, and the reader must be lead through what is vital to recognizing and understanding the serial bully.

About how I feel about childhood bullying. First of all, there is (through the early elementary years at least, more often widespread opportunistic bullying that a sharp-eyed teacher with a no nonense manner and high EQ skills can often completely eradicate. I know for I had those teachers and my grade school was a safe place for everyone. But now there are two major approaches to dealing with bullying within the schools and I have spent time talking to the psychologist who advocates what is now the minority view, but all in all, the expression of (early) childhood bullying and the entire theory and philosophy of this one school of thought which is so at odds with right thinking on the adult level, that I truly feel that it could best be dealt with as a separate topic.

Now, high school bullying (to me) is on a level with adult bullying and would have no place in a child-oriented topic. Never mind the terror of easily obtained guns, making one think of the early episodes of postal rage. Since Wiki is apparently not allowed to give links to support forums (I keep seeing them get mass-deleted), I think it best (speaking as a mother) that we not overwhelm that parents and children who come seeking. After they have met their needs and gotten a relatively good grasp on the issues facing them, then they can read about adult level bullying without getting swamped, overwhelmed and disrailed. One thing at a time. That's how I think, for what it's worth.

Hope you stay around and pitch in here. I dropped by your user page and saw that you have made quite a study of bullying, in so many envirnments. My one and only bully was online and I couldn't move to another town, I couldn't quit my job, I could not change schools or neighborhoods or hang out in new places or with new people for my bully relentless stalked me. But that will be developed later. I've talked to a psychologist who has studied and written about the cyberbully. Anyway, I'll be glad to see what opinions are voiced about this in the future months. Lots of time. Things don't have to be yesterday. -- A green Kiwi in learning mode 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have not yet put in citations for my additions earlier this week. I did not even put in tags, but I will look up how to do that (or copy the coding off some other entry). There is so much to learn and a million pages to learn it on. My head could explode. I realized what I wrote would need citations, but I figured Wikipedia was a place where everyone chipped in and would come up with the references that were needed. Just may have been wrong about that. I have now seen that some people take down your additions immediately if there are no citations and so I'm just glad that hasn't happened to me yet. - I am Kiwi 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem for me. This Wiki needs to be given time to evolve. It is a gradual process and we must have patience for things to develop and get properly completed over time. Text without citations is probably better than no text at all in most cases. -- Penbat 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The text in the Characteristic Of Bullies section is quite weak. We should try to get away from the idea that bullying somehow suddenly arrived from outer space and is a completely self-contained phenomina. The pathology can largely be explained by well documented psychological conditions such as psychopathy and narcissism. A Pathology of Bullies section is already being discussed on the Workplace Bullying Wiki entry - the same needs to be done here. Maybe change the Characteristics of Bullies title to Pathology of Bullies. -- Penbat 11:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the reference to the behaviour of bullies being generally considered to be purposeful. It often serves no purpose at all escept to ridicule or humiliate someone.-- Penbat 11:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

--I think it just means that bullying involves a deliberate intent to cause harm, i.e. a bully maliciously hurts someone as opposed to say, someone who's just inconsiderate or offends people by mistake. "purposeful" in this context doesn't mean constructive, or positive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratroop ( talk • contribs)

I have made minor alterations to the wording, changing statements like "Effects on mental health include" to "effects on mental health CAN include", so as to increase the accuracy of the statements: Every incidence of bullying does not result in all the effects in the list, but it can, in some cases give rise to one or more effects. The effects that are common according to popular belief are in the lists. Citations are needed however. I also juggled the list of effects on an individual to categorise these effects into mental health, physical health and social structures. Justdignity 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work, JustDignity. The correction of all or nothing statements was so needed. And I agree that the effects of bullying on the individual need separate subtopics. - I am Kiwi 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A psychopathology of bullying section is required to map the incidence of bullying to personality disorders (such as narcissism and psychopathy) and other mental conditions. An equivalent section has already been started at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying

There seems to be very little literature available on this. Any constructive help is welcome. -- Penbat 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your observation. I does seem that way, but some research may describe behaviors at least. Perhaps Tim Field's second book out next year might be more citation heavy? He, by virtue of records kept by his bullying help call line, has more raw data of a very wide-based bullied population than any other source. This is how he recognized the fact that most men and most women targets reported female supervisors doing the bullying. Also how school and hospitals were over-represented as bully ridden environments. That raw data will be followed up by specific controlled studies on various subpopulations - as soon as money is available for such studies. There must be schools of psychology that are investigating bullying, at least in in counseling psychology in grade schools.

There is research in bullying and hazing in colleges and military schools, though I don't know if it includes profiling bully traits or personality. I wonder if sanctioned torture in terrorist detention centers falls at all under sanctioned bullying where the encouragement and support of of abuse and degradation by supervisors could be seen as mobbing. Bulling is a very large topic. - I am Kiwi 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be common knowledge that the abused or bullied sometimes becomes bullies or abusers themslves. I am wondering if I am justified in identifying it as Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and people with BPD quite often bully but in a more disorganised way than NPD and psychopathy ? -- Penbat 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is well documented that the abused can (but not necessarily) become abusers themselves, but even though Field included BPD as having the same characteristics as is found in many serial bullies, it is scarcely a valid step to name all bullies borderline, especially as none of the pds are easy to diagnose from other disorders and illnesses and since the traits of multiple pds are usually present in a single person. - I am Kiwi 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But cant you say that anyone who bullies or abuses as a result of being bullied or abused themself have borderline ?-- Penbat 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this til now. No, it is a huge leap into unsubstantiated POV territory. Borderlines have overwhelming fear of rejection, alternating with frequent withdrawal from love objects (to avoid anticipated/feared eventual rejection), self harm and an alarming rate of suicide and suicidal attemps and gestures. I don't believe that characterizes any bully I have known personally. - I am Kiwi 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So is it futile trying to apply any sort of psychological label to those abused or bullied people who now abuse or bully themselves, but never did before they were abused or bullied ? -- Penbat 08:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Penbat. Freudians call such behavior acquisition as "identification with the aggressor" meaning sometimes a victim identifies with the persecutor and takes on the same abusive behaviors. Often children who are criticized a lot begin to put themselves down in a self-denigrating manner. That means that in a harmful and untrue attack that disparages and belittles the character or reputation of the self. This leads to depression, mistrust of anyone but self, and behavioral efforts to "pump up" self-perception.

This is recognized as a major step in the development of pathological narcissism. It is well-established that narcissism is a huge component in bullying. And, as it pointed out in the professional literature, there is a lot of overlap and fuzziness in a belaboured attempt to separate the so-called personality disorders under a collection of descriptive labels. And thus we find ourselves back where we began. pathological narcissistic personality development - I am Kiwi 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At least narcissism gets discussed in the workplace bullying article but should be in this article as well. Narcissism also apparently has a genetic factor (see Wiki article on narcissism). Couldnt an adult bully victim also turn bully  ? If so how could you explain that ? -- Penbat 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think psychopathy should be discussed. I'm not a mental health professional, but from a couple books I've read psychopaths usually have all the same traits as a typical bully, such as not identifying with victims and gaining great pleasure from harming others. I also noticed the section on how bullies are often very good at hiding it to authority figures and portraying themselves as the victim, again a classic psychopath trait.It seems to me many of the worst bullies are likely psychopaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratroop ( talk • contribs)

Fine, if there are any verifiable clinical sources to support your contentions lets include some reference to it. But a caveat, there are many sources that suggest a bully may, in fact, derive much of his satifaction from a perverse form of identification with his victim and many more sources that would suggest that, without a secondary pathology, because of reduced affectivity, a psychopath is actually less likely to derive pleasure from harming others in it's own right. They are too indifferent to the reactions of others to care as a general rule. -- Zeraeph 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite valient effort by probably a school child but it doesnt cut the mustard as it is short on specifics. It is very important that this is done properly and a separate section is needed about how to get legal redress as has already been done on Workplace Bullying Wiki. -- Penbat 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is just way too much content here from a single self-published source (see WP:SOURCE and WP:RS), Tim Field, without any other citations. This really needs to be checked thoroughly for POV and backed by other sources. -- Zeraeph 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is far too much content (or lack of it) here as a result of a single, self publishing source (see WP:SOURCE and WP:RS), i.e. Zeraeph, with hardly any other editors. Bear in mind Tim Field is deceased so he is not self promoting; Zeraeph is very much alive and active. Since her one month block was lifted, she has made scores of changes to this and related articles, with minimalist token use of the talk pages. The resulting articles really need to be checked thoroughly to ensure they have not been narrowed down to contain Zeraeph's POV. Justdignity 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that a single, self published source, is a single self published source, no matter how deceased, or how many or few editors remark it.

To maintain NPOV an article needs to use material from many sources, the majority of which should be formally qualified and published (see WP:SOURCE and WP:RS). I believe you may be misunderstanding my use of the the phrase "self published" which is defined thus in WP:RS:

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Tim Field's books were all published by "Successunlimited" [1] a company that was owned and controlled by Tim Field [2]. His article were published entirely on his own website. This also strongly suggests that his work is largely original research and not acceptable as such. (See WP:OR)

I would like to reassure Justdignity that I do not, in any sense, have a personal POV to sell. I simply wish to see this article based the real, formally qualified and published, sources that exist and whatever they have said. -- Zeraeph 00:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for being forward, but may I point out that not only did Tim Field write a book, he lectured and advised businesses and government about the problem bullying posed to the field of mental health, physical health, absence from work and school, and therefore major economic impact. He was and is regarded as an expert in the field, even if his website seems amateurish. Others with degrees in psychology in the areas of organizations, employment and education already have and will continue to substantiate what he wrote about.

Realize that Freud was not trained in Psychoanalysis at all. He was primarily a neurologist which is why he was drawn to the study of those with unexplained neurological problems that he later came to realize had deep emotional roots. Lots of "original research", but even in the earliest days, he had tremendous influence on his contemporaries and the public. No, not comparing them as Tim Field drew heavily on the research of others - even though he doesn' footnote him material on his website.

Periodic situational bullying is not what he observed in most cases referred to him, but serial bullies who have strong predominant personality characteristics found in such prodominance in what is known in this country (per DSM-IV) as the Cluster B personality disorders. This is something I have seen you deleting various places, without reason or foundation. No matter what "label" someone may be given in a particular environment, very serious permanent and persistant behavioral compulsions are just that.

In the history of this and other psychopath and narcissist topics and to those topics connected to the abuse meted out by the former, and one thing becomes clear. You shut off article development here and elsewhere without adding anything back. You claim to be the most knowledgeable person to speak for these issues, but you contribute nothing. Back in June, you came here, did the same, drove everyone off. No one returned until you were banned for a month. After you came back, you set what seems like an all-time record for deletions here and in Workplace Bullying. It seems they (and other topics) are less than they were before.

It seems you are terribly distressed by articles that have citation needed flags up for longer than 7 days and articles leaning too much on one resource. I know they are out there, by the HUNDREDS-neglected not for a few days, but for months, sometimes YEARS. I implore you to spread yourself around to police MORE topics that need your strong impact.

Either that, or become a leader.

JMHO -- A green Kiwi in learning mode 03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you, as a total stranger, to please refrain in future, on the grounds of civility, from making inaccurate, personal statements about me or speculating upon my reactions to anything.

I do not like to see articles that are based upon conjecture, or unverifiable, unqualified, self-published sources. Fortunately, this preference of mine accords with Wikipedia policy as expressed in WP:SOURCE and WP:RS. -- Zeraeph 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish to make it clear, Zeraeph, to you and to those who read this, that I strongly approve of many many of your editting decisions. It is just that I feel that if you could be a leader who was willing to be a leader, a facilitator, a mentor - instead of doing the ton of bricks thing, perhaps this article and others related to it would develop in a way that everyone could be happy with. As I see it, there are only two ways to proceed. Either you become the leader of this editing process by utilizing the Talk Page for brainstorming and education, or take the job yourself of determing what this topic is about. I know if you really try, you might become the one to bring a topic to FAS. -- A green Kiwi in learning mode

Thank You for you compliments and taking the time to express your opinions. Though I really do think you should take a little more time to understand what Wikipedia is really about. -- Zeraeph 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There were WAY too many External links. I removed obvious blogs, non notable, near duplications, workplace specific, unfinished sites etc (sorry this was a "linkprune 911" situation) but needs more pruning still. -- Zeraeph 17:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically this whole section should have been deleted as unencyclopaedic, original research that was so badly disorganised it really belongs in a sandbox not a namespace.

BUT

It seems to me a very good subsection to have so I have cropped it back to the bare bones in the hope of getting it appropriately expanded and developed in future.-- Zeraeph 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that if a bully is harassing you, don't let him get away with it. Declare war! Beat him to a bloody pulp. SENSAY911 02:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What if he's much bigger than you?-- Light current 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

According to philosopher Thomas Hobbes, use "secret machination or with confederacy with others that are in the same danger". The problem is bullies (esp. the manipulative ones) can command large crowds just as well.

Zeraeph, I wanted to talk to you about introducing alternative POVs into the articles about bullying (and I still want to see childhood bullying become its own topic - but that's another story).

Today, a friend sent me this article link - which discusses two author's work with changing how people respond to "hooks" in interactions within the workplace and how how we respond to hooks determines whether we can change things or not. I thought it was brilliant. Of course it is not a cure-all. You could scarcely just hand out copies of the book when someone is hired. This is actually teaching life skills, setting boundaries, feeling entitled to speak up, how to confront without being unreasonable or abusive in turn.

• Working with You is Killing Me

As for children, I'm speaking of "Izzy" as he goes by, psychologist behind the Bullies to Buddies approach to bullying in childhood and in school. I have exchanged a number of emails with him over the past few years, and have encouraged him to write articles for magazines, spreading the word that there is a option to strict policies of policing student behaviors. But we have also discussed the fact that, in adults, there are persons with pathological ridgedly set personalites where the "let's make friends" approach will never help a bit.

Izzy has traveled to teach various school systems, administrators and schoolteachers, his ideas and approach and has received positive feedback on how the implemented program works. Here is a Googled link to show how many other sources, often educational research, is looking at the same thing.

• Looking for more alternate responses in school bullying However, he and others advocating anything but the "zero tolerance" approach currently face an steep uphill battle.

I personally feel that the predominate manner of responding to workplace bullying results in a lot of perpetuation and lengthening of emotional disability. However, I do see a great deal of value in the steps of recognizing that there are people that spend their lifetimes treating others badly and understanding that what is happening does not reflect on any inadequacies. Second step, to understand why the behavior happens - which may range from jealousy that you have gotten a promotion, to deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and rageful feelings. So third step, clear up your emotional responses - in short, get rid of the shame, often the result of input from parents and teachers, early childhood experienced. Fourth step, teaching effective low stress responses to deal productively with serious bullying or dysfunctional problematic behaviors.

The authors stress, first of all, a physical response of dealing with your physiological response to behaviors that "hook" you into a defensive shut-down posture of feeling that you have no outs and no solutions. Learning how to let go. This reduces the high blood pressure and heart disease, reduced immune response and the development of many stress-related illnesses, all of which lead to disability of various degrees and a huge economic impact on business and society, not the least of all is the burden placed on disbility programs.

Do you have ideas on how to incorporate such things? I have not been around enough to have any idea of how to create NPOV in such long and complicated topics. -- A green Kiwi in learning mode 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to point out something I forgot to include, even though it is one of the most vital parts of this response to adult bullying. The people most likely to be damaged by severe bullying have problems, if you will, of their own. And they are often not problems that can be addressed quickly or simply, but can be in regular sessions (most usefully, twice a week) consisting support, teaching and coaching. Not many businesses are large enough to pay for a consultant coach to teach such courses, but maybe if they were instead integrated into a regular human relations arranged presentations paired with the distribution of books and workbooks.

Of course, this article above still emphasizes that the bullied must still follow through with a series of steps in order to document and support them in cases where more action must be taken. For this reason, I think listing these steps is an essential part of the article. True, Wiki not being a how-to book, it can't venture much beyond an approach advocated by those with both POVs. I to tend to think that each point of view should be linked, but perhapsthese might be linked within the article rather than set-aside at the end? What is the wiki policy in allowing readers to follow up on opposing points of view that cannot be justified within the context of the article? -- A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I really feel that all this wealth of comment was wasted on my talk page so I have brought it here.

There are some thought provoking ideas here that should be shared.

It's late, and I am tired but my feeling is that it would be very hard to impossible to integrate much of this thought into the article. No matter how valid or interesting, original research, which includes personal ideas and opinions, are not suitable for inclusion.

The best concise definition that comes to my mind is that an encyclopaedia should inform, not instruct. At first sight perhaps a subtle difference, but actually a very significant one. An encyclopaedia should be, of it's nature, non-directive.

I am just too tired to look at the links properly tonight but I do hope there will be some way to introduce some reference to it in the article. Provided the the information and the credentials of the named parties can be verified. -- Zeraeph 02:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well okay then, Zeraeph. We can't include of any "steps" on how to proceed in protecting one's self... Is is allowed or not allowed to give links to sites that do refer to how to proceed within any given business or how to proceed to protect youself legally. Can you post the post the link to the wiki policy page that explains this?

Okay, that is take of.... but how have you suddenly made the huge leap to seemingly dismissing all I wrote to "it would be very hard to impossible to integrate much of this thought into the article." You have been pushing for balance in POV and I have just now offered it to you. No one else has brought this here before. I do hope that you are still as open to creating a balanced article as your have been earlier.

I understand completely now that these are your topics and you have final say over what can be added, so I hope you understand how very important it is that you be clear as to what you will allow so no one wastes their time. I wouldn't have spent so much time presenting my thoughts if I thought they would be dismissed out of hand as "impossible to integrate into the topic." -- A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way, but you asked my opinion specifically and I am afraid that, unless you can find proper sources (in accord with WP:RS WP:SOURCE and WP:V) to cite in support of them, your own ideas and conjectures are original research and cannot be included (See WP:OR).

As for the links you included, all I believe I said about them was that I am too tired to look at them properly tonight, and while that is a fact (I am only awake now to deal with medication), I am afraid it is not the topic of any Wikipedia policy -- Zeraeph 06:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as Bullies to Buddies is concerned, though I would agree that Izzy Kalman is impeccably qualified, unfortunately the primary purpose of his site seems to be the promotion of his self published books so that it really isn't suitable as a source (see WP:RS WP:SOURCE and WP:V) or even a link (see WP:EL). However I think including various alternative POV on how to tackle bullying, that cite sources that do accord with WP:RS WP:SOURCE and WP:V, is absolutely the way to go.

The book "Working with you is Killing me" (published by Warner Business Books) does seem a suitable source to cite (though perhaps more appropriate to Workplace bullying?), though I have one reservation. I am not entirely sure whether the book aims to deal with bullying specifically, or just normal workplace stress, and I do feel the distinction needs to be clearly made between the two? It would be great if someone could actually get a look at the book?-- Zeraeph 09:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Curious about how Wiki feels about "How To's", I randomly picked Snake bites and Bone fractures, and discovered they both contained extensive treatment details... so we obviously need to go back to that page.. the Help Desk? and ask them to clarify this contentious point.

• -- A green Kiwi in learning mode 07:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"I was thinking about why bullying exists, and it occurred to me that bullying could simply be an evolutionary product that allows a group to dispense of members that are less 'fit'? Looking at the stereotypical bully victim, there is nearly always a characteristic of the victim that makes them a bad member to have in a group trying to survive in the wild. They are often either fat, have bad eyesight, are very weak atheletes, are mentally ill, are disabled, are socially inept or possess some other trait that nowadays is (or should be) completely irrelevant to how they are treated, but 100,000 years ago could be the difference between life and death for a group of early humans. Perhaps bullying is simply a method of forcing weaker members of the group out so that the group, and therefore the individual (so selection is still taking place at the individual level), are more likely to survive and reproduce? It would explain why the vast, vast majority of bully victims would be considered unfit in evolutionary terms millenia ago." - a user at Internet Infidels Discussion Board —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.149.60 ( talk • contribs)

There probably is an element of truth in this, in the sense that bullies often pick on those who do not conform to the norms or standards of the group. If you look at animals you will often see a similar phenomenon.

The Aztec "Flowery Wars" probably served a similar function in their time, but in our more sophisticated age, they are not only socially discouraged but very illegal, as bullying should be. -- Zeraeph 13:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actions the Victims Can Take Against Bullying

Stanfield (1992):[13] suggests that the victim may take the following actions against a bully:

   * Do not look like a victim - stay calm with head up, shoulders back, eyes straight ahead with an unconcerned facial expression
   * Ignore the bully. Do not look at or talk to the bully.
   * If you cannot or do not want to ignore the bully, maintain good eye contact and use a calm voice and say the following:
         o Tell the bully what you do not like.
         o Tell the bully how his/her behavior makes you feel.
         o Tell the bully what behavior you want.
         o Tell the bully what will happen if he/she does not stop.
         o If the bully is dangerous - leave and get help."

Should this even be included? This sounds like a fleshed out version of what my Mother heard in the sixties, being a bullying victim back in the old days, I know for certain nothing that makes you look weaker, I.E., the above, will help you. I'm glad to see that adults refuse to punish the bullies was included earlier in the article, but this poor advice, and the advice suggesting adult intervention, doesn't work, and I feel there need to be other sources of advice in this article, suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revrant ( talk • contribs)

Have to admit that in my personal opinion and experience the above advice would rather tend to constitute "asking for it".

It might be better to leave all subjective advice of this kind, out of the article? Anyway, I have taken it out. -- Zeraeph 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't even slightly encyclopaedic and can't stay in the namespace, but it's too good to just void so I am pasting it here (which is somebody's cue to tell me it charted in several states and isn't remotely original, and infringes 7 kinds of copyright laws, but I don't know that so what the feck? :O) ):

Bullys who are not physically tormenting you are quite easy to deal with... just say to them wow thats so original did you think of that all by yourself and just walk away with your head held high. Never let anybody tell you are somebody less then great. Everybody is great in their own way. And just remember your not alone in this world so dont ever feel like you have to walk alone.

~*~If you dont know me Dont judge me

nobody said you had to love me

if ur going to talk and hate

make sure your facts are strait

cause wat you think i am

Chances are im not.~*~

~*~ Life you gotta take the good with the bad

smile with the sad

love with you got

and remember what you had

learn to forgive but never forget

learn from you mistakes

but never regret

people change things go wrong

just remember life goes on.... ~*~

~*~ Call me a slut,

call me a whore,

call me a bitch,

ive heard it all before,

say that i am fake,

say that i lie,

say that i am hated,

say what you want,

you wont see me cry,

cause i know none of it is true,

cause calling me all this shit,

what the f*ck does that make you....~*

Orignally posted in namespace by Happylemonstick 10:43, 29 November 2006 -- Zeraeph 14:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This section isn't really written in the form of an encyclopedia article, it sounds more like a combination guide for dealing with bullying/firsthand account of something the editor who wrote it went through. Can someone re-write it?

This article is fucked up no offence

Is the section Types of Bullying boring, so that readers will be discouraged to read the rest of the article?

Hello contributors to this issue,

I think the "Social Defeat" approach can contribute to improve the understanding of human aggression issues, like bullying and others. Please read the "stub" i wrote in WIKIPEDIA:

Social defeat

Thank you for your attention,

Alberto

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.