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.

I've added the OTRS cleanup tag to the bulying is a thing of bad behavior article per ticket number 2006122210009701. Thanks, M a rtinp23 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In this article refrence #26 goes to a 404 error, the new link is http://www.workplacebullying.org/targets/problem/definition.html Is it possible to get that updated? (sorry if this is in the wrong section) Garynamie ( talk) 18:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it for you - ref 27 actually. -- Penbat ( talk) 18:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Garynamie ( talk) 21:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to despute the nutrality of this page it's leaning towards being anti-bullying, i'm not saying bullying is good but even the page on rape has to be neutral —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bully25 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It must be a joke.-- Loudon dodd 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Add comment : all the scholar references are "anti-bullying", so the real neutrality in that case consists in following this views, or the article would be pov (it would be wikipedia's own pov-pushing, in fact.) But if there are other references who say that bullying is a positive thing, and then should be promote, it should then appear in the article. Until this references are given, the article can't be said to be non-neutral.-- Loudon dodd 16:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Add comment : I may be wrong here but when drill sgts 'bully' the troops don't they call that constructive bullying —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bully25 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't want your opinion, but references. Clear references.-- Loudon dodd 23:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article is tremendrously biased -- Usien6 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is digustingly biased. HappyDragon ( talk) 02:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need help with bullying problems go to ... www.Ask-Fred.piczo.com !!! It really helped me ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.144.100 ( talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Has Zeraeph done anything at Wikipedia that made you think that he or she is a bully? How about a target? How about a bystander? What is it that he or she did? Why did you think like that? ~~ Raistlin Majere ~~

Hi Raistlin, it's ok, it's just somebody I know for years who wanted his own way and didn't get it.

Over the years a lot of people connected to abuse support related issues have got used the internet as a place where they can just wake up one morning and announce that they are an expert in something, and then reinforce it by promoting themselves as an expert on as many sites as possible, particularly those where you can self publish text.

They aren't all bad people, they don't all mean harm as such (very few really do, they just want kudos and affirmation), what they don't understand is that nobody gets to be an *expert* through personal experience, enthusiasm and opinion alone. The sad part is that, as you watch them, over the years, they seem to get more and more spiteful and unscrupulous with every obstacle they encounter, and it seems that, whatever abuse they began by opposing, becomes nothing more than a pejorative term for anyone who does not give them blind, unquestioning support.

Another thing these people never seem to understand easily is that Wikipedia is not just another self publishing site where they can promote their self appointed expertise. Wikipedia is a serious attempt at a serious encyclopaedia, where information must be verified from reliable sources, and where recognised and qualified expertise trumps all claims, and that a serious Wikipedia editor is only interested in running down and posting that information, not in promoting personal agenda.

Sure, anyone can edit, but there are a feck of a lot of us, who take Wikipedia very seriously, to jump on, and revert, misinformation, often in minutes rather than hours, and we do. -- Zeraeph 12:16, March 7 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph - you do not check your information before allowing it - There is no legislation in Ontario that protects people from psychological harassment. I am currently working with the MPP who is working on it. You have called me a vandal - and threatened me. Ok, it is now time for me to take this to the head of wikipedia. You do not have the right to call names, and bully people like that. I gave you phone numbers to call (Ontario Occupational Health and Safety – 416-314-5421). You do not validate your info, and you bully people who try to correct things based on fact. The text you refer to is old, and the Act has NOT been revised yet. Unless parliament house votes to pass the bill-45 then it is NOT a law - thus no protection. It does not matter what is on the internet website. The important document is the legal act that impacts peoples use of the Human Rights Act & Ontario Health and Safety Act. You can call the MPP working on this if you would like more confirmation of my information www.andreahorwath.ca . Neither of these Acts cover bullying/psychological harassment in Ontario. So far people have had to go through the Court system and fight hard.

To answer your question - YES Zeraeph is bullying people on the net with her editorship. Name calling & threatening is Bullying. You sent me a note via Talk telling me I am a vandal and you will report me breaking wiki codes - fine report me - bring it on - my information is correct and I am insulted you are fighting so hard to maintain faults information. - You need to relook at Namie's,UNISON 1997,Helge Hoel & Cary L Cooper, 2000 pieces of work. All published professionally and list out bullying behavior.

Also Zeraeph - you do not know everyones one back ground who comes here, to suggest we simply wake up one morning declaring ourself experts is ignorance! ~~Tamara Parris~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 ( talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just had to remove a lot of text, some of which suggested important information to me, all of which was posted in a single hour without one single citation.

It even included the dreaded words: "I estimate one person in thirty has this behaviour profile. I describe them as having a disordered personality"

See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a showcase for your personal opinions and ideas, whether they be good, bad or indifferent. It is an encyclopaedia of verifiable information that must cite valid (see WP:SOURCE) and verifiable (see WP:V) information.

Apart from which I honestly cannot imagine a case where the word I should appear in a namespace...unless in paranthesis, as part of a quote. -- Zeraeph 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, anything with "I" should definitely be removed or edited unless it's quoted or in an appropriate place such as The King and I or I Love Lucy. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why we must be careful with verifiability and citations

There is an growing volume of subjectivity, partial information and misinformation on this topic on the internet posted by self appointed experts, most usually individuals who self report as "victims of bullying", which, however well -intentioned they may be, makes them too subjective and inclined to over identify to the point of not just POV but some serious distortions.

The trouble is it is just TOO EASY fall into the trap of assuming that some of this misinformation is established and verified fact or academic theory, when, too often it is just one person's, subjective, thinking.

I think it is very important on Wikipedia to dismiss all that misinformation and get back to established and verified fact or academic theory, from reputable sources and objective experts.

I personally feel bullying is a very important topic and that we owe it to those who have been bullied, are being bullied and will be bullied to present the most thorough, valid, objective and balanced information we can find.

Because of the plethora of misinformation already available, I am hoping we can try to achieve this by sticking to citing sources that people can, at least partially, check for themselves, rather than obscure paper only sources?

Let's do it, huh? -- Zeraeph 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

--In regard to issues such as this, it’s equally subjective to label a view one doesn’t agree with as “misinformation.” I fit the profile of one of those people who were victims of severe school bullying (and have written a thinly-veiled personal memoir (“Pride’s Prison”), a free access short story published online concerning such) who has established a website devoted to the anti-bullying cause. To paraphrase Herman Wouk in The Winds of War: “There are worse ways to learn war than by serving in the trenches.”

Much of what I recount and advise at my site has been echoed by recognized “experts” in the field whom I have since read. My credentials are the three years in Purgatory I endured as a parochial school student in the sixties. So when a perceived expert advises something, it’s credible? When someone like me advises the exact same thing from an empirical perspective, it’s “misinformation”?

I consider my website to be the “right wing” of the anti-school bullying movement because I have no tolerance for whining. I have a more restrictive view as to what constitutes school bullying than do most anti-bullying experts, and I don’t give a damn for what reason (pretext) a child is targeted by school sadists. I do not, for example, consider social exclusion to be a form of bullying. I only argue for a child’s right to be simply left alone so he or she can have the benefit of the education his or her parents are paying for with their taxes or tuition in an atmosphere conducive to learning.

Children have the same right to free association as do adults, and it is up to each person to navigate his or her way through one’s social environment. (When a lack of such is part of the problem, I advocate working with a youngster to improve his or her social graces.) Those who whine about social exclusion don’t have a problem with bullying. Rather, they have a problem with self-esteem. If that whole damned class had “sent me to Coventry,” I would have been ecstatic!

Nor do I consider shaking down school kids for lunch money to be true bullying if the victim is just one of several. True bullying is always personal; the motive is always sadism. Juvenile delinquency is another topic.

In short, I consider true and severe school bullying to be much more restricted than indicated by the insipid claims thrown about such as: “Fifty percent of all kids have been bullied in school.” Such absurd statistics only serve to cheapen the problem. To be singled out for torment day after day for an extended period of time is something relatively few youngsters have had to cope with.

These relatively few kids are the true victims of school bullying in any meaningful sense of the word, and the whiners who claim their status over trivial incidents, as well as the “experts” who support such claims by citing irresponsible statistics, persecute them twice. Fifty percent of the kids in my sixth grade class were not tormented. The actual percentage had been 1.82 (1/55); i.e., me, by about a half-dozen kids. The rest just looked on and kept quiet.

So by asserting that true bullying is only defined by acts of commission and not omission, and is rarer than most experts claim, am I disseminating misinformation in your point of view or asserting an opinion as least as credible as those of experts you acknowledge? Donald Schneider —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this might not be the best place to put this, but why the hell was the bullycide article deleted? Thomasiscool 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there WAS a bullycide article? Explain please? -- Zeraeph 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullycide. FWIW, I would have closed the AfD as delete as well. Heck, the first sentence of the article even reads "Bullycide is a neologism used by the 2001 book..." (emphasis mine) -- Deathphoenix ʕ 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the AFD alone I would have voted to delete myself!-- Zeraeph 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zeraeph, and I think its an important subject that's worthy of an article. Thomasiscool 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may mistake me, because I certainly do not think "Bullycide" a word invented, rather cynically, to promote a book in 2001, is an important subject at all. Though I do think bullying and it's devastating effects is. -- Zeraeph 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. I actually contributed somewhat to the article to add a few examples of people dying as a result of bullying, but since this word is a neologism (I guess I should have paid attention to the first sentence!), I fully agree with the delete decision. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But is there someplace else we can put the information from that article, perhaps a section in the bullying article? Thomasiscool 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is a really valid point that was occurring to me, because, though the word may be new and artificial, the phenomenon of people being literally bullied to suicide is very real and very significant.

Maybe you could come up with something? Always remembering that the more valid, verifiable and reliable the sources, the more significant the subsection will be and the more impact it will have on readers...and, out of respect for those who have been literally "bullied to death" I would like to see the subsection have a great deal of impact. -- Zeraeph 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be biased against "fictional examples", but I went to the deleted article and looked at the real-life examples. If we decide to use these examples, I'll probably need to undelete the history of the bullycide article and redirect it to bully to preserve GFDL attribution requirements. Therefore, please just look at these examples and discuss them before we put them in the main article. I need to preserve GFDL before we put this content up:

• Curtis Taylor committed suicide on March 22, 1993 when he went into his bedroom and shot himself in the head after three years of bullying.
• Thirteen-year-old Jared High was brutally assaulted by a known schoolyard bully. After he and the bully were both suspended, he became depressed, and eventually committed suicide.
• Twelve-year-old Debbie Shaw died from injuries received from fighting a bully at a British school.
• Jean Evans, a teacher in the West Midlands, committed suicide because of bullying from students. Another teacher at the same school committed suicide shortly afterwards.

Remember, these need to be cited per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Right now, Jared High is the only one to contain sufficient information to be included. We'll need some sources for the other three before we can include them. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We already have Curtis Taylor as an example of school bullying. Debbie Shaw should really being in the school bullying section too, because her tragic end was not suicide but certainly needs recognition. I think what we need most are not so much case histories as academic abstracts specific to suicide induced by bullying? -- Zeraeph 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many victims of abuse commit suicide, especially when no escape seems possible and after PTSD develops. Don't know how the term bullycide would fit in here, but term needs mention in section detailing emotional and physical damage to victims.

What is far more unique in bullying is how bullied victims sometimes take revenge by murdering classmates and coworkers. While it is relatively rare for a victim to seek retaliation, bullying revenge results in mass murders, often indiscriminate, and then suicide by the victim.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.94.161 ( talk • contribs)

Do you have some reputable and verifiable sources for these assertations that meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS? Otherwise I am afraid they are not suitable for inclusion.-- Zeraeph 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.94.161 ( talk • contribs)

I am addressing you. Please try to remember to sign your comments. -- Zeraeph 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

About what? Been looking over the past month. You have done some excellent organising work here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.94.161 ( talk • contribs)

Please try to remember to sign your comments. Also, please find reputable and verifiable sources for your assertions, particularly before posting them in the article namespace. -- Zeraeph 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As a word, "Bullycide" means bully-kill, not "death by bullying". So it applies to bullies being killed by their victims, not how sometimes victims of bullying commit suicide. In any event, the word should be used in a reliable source before we use it in this article. -- GunnarRene 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Not aware of that, given all focus on suicide. Simply excellent. The author who coined it not sufficient source? Woe be to Buckeyballs, then.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.94.161 ( talk • contribs)

In accord with concensus of the AFD, the author who invented the word would not seem to be sufficient source. Please sign your comments with two dashes and four tildes, thank you. -- Zeraeph 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph is right, according to the article and the AfD, the term "bullycide" is a neologism invented in a book and is of insufficient notability to warrant its own article. The concept of people dying through bullying (whether by suicide or homocide) itself is not new, so therefore, examples of this may warrant inclusion in this bullying article, as long as the examples are well-sourced. BTW, in case Zeraeph wasn't clear enough, it's best to sign your comments using the following four characters: --~~~~ -- Deathphoenix ʕ 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for sources, just google "bullycide". I guarantee there will be more than enough results. And like I suggested, we wouldn't necessarily have to even use the word "bullycide". If, for example, it was a section in this article, it could be called "Cases of death as a result of bullying" or something to that effect. Thomasiscool 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't think we should use the word "bullycide" (there is too much jargon and too many faddish "buzz words" already, without making more) if you look under "Effects of Bullying" you will see that a small beginning already sort of made itself on introducing the topic of death due to bullying. -- Zeraeph 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it seems to make sense to add to that. The word "bullycide" doesn't even need to be mentioned. Thomasiscool 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to agree on this issue, I have added the examples from the defunct Bullycide article to the Effects section of this article, plus a source. If anyone doesn't agree with this, please discuss changes before making them. Many thanks, Thomasiscool 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The additions are fine, but they really do need to be properly cited. The only citation included is basically from a one man website that does not satisfy WP:RS in this capacity. There surely must be press sources? -- Zeraeph 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The only problem now is getting permission to use the sites. ZackM 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)ZackM

Fortunately there is no need for permission to cite publically accessible articles. As I have now done. -- Zeraeph 01:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just looking for some sources myself. However, I have added Reena Virk as an example, because I think we should have at least one example that was not suicide. Thomasiscool 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally, that is brilliant...also it would be a shame to miss out any other deaths that are the subject of WP articles? -- Zeraeph 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent addition. As a fellow Canadian, I should have thought of Reena Virk immediately. Actually, these cases set a good precedent, they either have their own articles or are properly sourced. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Definately felt the list needed a bit of "internationalising" too myself. Truth is, when you go looking there are SO MANY examples of children dying in a manner that has been connected to bullying that it would make your blood run cold. The important thing is to only include those examples where the connection has been established beyond allegation.

I would also like to include an example of at least one adult conclusively proven (which rules out Deepcut Barracks which, as far as I know is still contested) to have died as a result of bullying. -- Zeraeph 11:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Were you thinking of adults dying as a result of workplace bullying or as a result of bullying by youth? Thomasiscool 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Either, both...it's not important, what IS important is that they be verifiable, and established to be bullying related, not just claimed or alleged to be (or worse, sub judica)...that's why it wasn't possible to use Jean Evans, there is no way of knowing to what extent the claim was substantiated, or even what form the bullying took. -- Zeraeph 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on another note, I think we should consider making the names of the examples we have, except those who already have their own pages, to redirect to this article. Any thoughts? Thomasiscool 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On this I don't know...not sure how it would sit with criteria for notability? Also, if the search engines pick it up how will it add to the search listings? I would love to honor all these people to the limit...but there are SO MANY of them, we cannot even begin to list all the established cases, just examples, and every one of them is equally important. Let's see what others have to say?

A further thought, might there be a sufficient case for a List of people who died due to bullying article, with a cited paragraph for each case, to be able to list more of them? -- Zeraeph 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Its starting to sound like a good idea, since there are so many cases. And I agree that we should include some examples from outside North America, though these seem to be hard to come across, unfortunately. Thomasiscool 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's suicide and that's all. 'Bullycide' demeans the victim somehow. SteveRamone ( talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In Delaware, United States ... and perhaps in other states ... legislation has appeared in the form of the "School Bullying Prevention Act" [1] which aims "to provide a safer learning environment for students attending public schools". I am not familiar with the topic in general and thought I would mention this here in case anyone would like to pursue it from any suitable angle. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A great company to talk with about Bullying Training and Prevention in schools is PublicSchoolWORKS. They provide online training that teaches preventative measures on School Bullying and how to identify problems before they get out of hand. It also has assessments that are reportable and able to be stored for school staff to show that training is complete on this subject. Their company website is http://corp.publicschoolworks.com/ They are able to make sure that each training class is applicable nationally and the state it is being used in as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.243.3 ( talk) 19:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME TO READ THIS I am currently a schoolchild in year 6 (11 yrs) the name of the bully is best kept anonymous because I DON'T WANT FUSS! you see this person is a '''very nasty brat''' as like 2 describe her she swears at me and makes me feel sad all the time i dont tell people everything she does but she makes me feel so small. I have 2 hide my saddness from lots of people including teachers. I am sooo upset and cannot enjoy things in life I may be feeling sorry 4 myself but bullying makes u feel hurt, upset, sad and so worred it makes u ill.

IT NEEDS 2 STOP OR MILLIONS OF KIDS LIKE ME SHALL SUFFER!!

Any idea on the source of these idiots, anyone? MojoTas 07:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same myself. This is just a few kids who think it's cute to use the Bullying page on Wikipedia to bully I think. Semi protecting the page for a while might be an idea? At least slow 'em down. -- Zeraeph 11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

totaly agrree!! from ??????????

I have removed the image being used as I do not see how it is "an example of a bully". We do not need stereotyping here thank you -- Speed Air Man 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job! I suspect that was more an "example of bullying" than an example of a bully ANYWAY...-- Zeraeph 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the fact that Drill Sergeants and Basic Training are officially approved institutionalized bullying seen as necessary for the breaking down of for bonds, associations and identity in order to forge a new bond of joint identity and goals --- esprit de corps. I hope this can be reintroduced into the section on the military.

This is the copy from a document that illustrates my point. It is from Chapter 17 - Management of recruit suicide

BEGINNING OF QUOTED MATERIAL U’Ren’s observations instrumentally changed the training policy at West Point. The command decreased the pressure on cadets in 1971. Subsequent analysis found that mental health and suicidal ideation visits dropped significantly while attrition remained constant. In fact, by letting out those who wanted out, the process became not only less painful for all cadets, but also allowed tactical officers and cadet leaders to focus more attention on new cadets who wanted to stay.

- U’Ren RC. The nature of change at West Point. J Am Coll Health Assoc. 1974;22:185–188.

Contagion of suicidal ideation and behavior, like suicidal risk, is multidetermined. Two prominent factors that affect the risk of suicidal contagion for teenagers, soldiers in war, and military recruits are unit (or group) cohesion and morale. Those who are alienated and demoralized are more likely to identify with a suicidal peer.

- Human Rights Watch. The wrongs of passage: Inhuman and degrading treatment of new recruits in the Russian armed forces. Human Rights Watch 2004;16. Available at: hrw.org/reports/2004/russia1004/

In the military, unit cohesion and unit morale are closely related. Cohesion, which fosters high morale, has two primary components

(1) horizontal cohesion, determined by one’s confidence in and loyalty to peers

(2) vertical cohesion, determined by one’s confidence in and loyalty to leadership.

- Manning FJ. Morale and cohesion in military psychiatry. In: Jones FD, ed. Military Psychiatry: Preparing in Peace for War. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, Office of The Surgeon General; 1994: 1–18.

The dynamics of cohesion development in a training unit are different than in a regular unit. In the training unit, the intense focus on group-level rewards and punishments is intended to build esprit de corps - loyalty and commitment to the ideals, values, and structure of the military and respect for and identification with leaders. This becomes the basis for remolding individuals from multicultural civilians into a team that embraces common values, goals, and methods of achieving goals. Successful recruits carry this sense of teamwork on to their first duty assignment. Although horizontal cohesion remains weak in the training unit because of its temporary nature, those who complete the training cycle identify themselves as a special and successful group—an important component of unit cohesion.

- U’Ren RC. The nature of change at West Point. J Am Coll Health Assoc. 1974;22:185–188. - U’Ren RC, Conrad FE, Patterson PH. A year’s experience in student mental health at West Point. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130:643–647.

During training, high stress, competition, and the need to see oneself as fit and worthy may seriously hinder capacity for empathy with those who struggle—the less fit or less worthy. Although the lack of peer-to-peer empathy detracts from horizontal cohesion, the constrained training environment and the ubiquitous influence of drill sergeants foster strong vertical cohesion (at least from the trainees toward the cadre). This strong vertical cohesion, along with the example set by the cadre and command, plays the most prominent role in determining a training unit’s overall cohesion and morale, and concurrently influences the risk of suicidal contagion.

Trainees experience especially high levels of stress during the early part of training. During this time trainees are most likely to become symptomatic, and the risk of contagion is highest.

- Cigrang JA, Carbone EG, Todd S, Fiedler E. Mental health attrition from Air Force basic military training. Mil Med. 1998;163:834–838. - Armon C, Hadas N, Revach M. Medicine in the basic combat training period (recruits medicine). I: The approach to the recruit. Mil Med. 1984;149:579–587. - Bourne PG. Some observations on the psychosocial phenomena seen in basic training. Psychiatry. 1967;30:187–196. - Carbone EG, Cigrang JA, Todd SL, Fiedler ER. Predicting outcome of military basic training for individuals referred for psychological evaluation. J Pers Assess. 1999;72:256–265. - Clemons EP. Monitoring anxiety levels and coping skills among military recruits. Mil Med. 1996;161:18–21. - Englert DR, Hunter CL, Sweeney BJ. Mental health evaluations of US Air Force basic military training and technical training students. Mil Med. 2003;168:904–910. - Koshes RJ, Rothberg JM. Parasuicidal behavior on an active duty army training post. Mil Med. 1992;157:350–353. - Talcott GW, Haddock CK, Klesges RC, Lando H, Fiedler E. Prevalence and predictors of discharge in United States - Air Force Basic Military Training. Mil Med. 1999;164:269–274.

Not every recruit with an acute stress reaction needs a mental health referral, and not every recruit with a mental health referral will fail training. Active implementation of techniques that help recruits manage stress and develop better coping skills, combined with alert observation of those who are unable to benefit from such techniques, will help command more accurately assess who is at high risk.

Some suggested techniques to improve stress management include the following:

• Leadership acknowledgment that training is stressful, that overcoming stress has rewards, that those who struggle deserve compassion, and that the military is not for everyone. • Educational groups for trainees modeled on cognitive-behavioral therapeutic principles that explore the range of responses to the challenges of military training. • Opportunities for trainees to engage in noncompetitive bonding experiences.

Tucker and U’Ren describe varying social and environmental factors that may influence the numbers who might be affected by a parasuicide epidemic: • Change in likely assignment (ie, recently declared war). • Change in harshness of training, either because of policy or burned-out training personnel. • Change in standards for acceptance for training.

- Tucker GJ, Gorman ER. The significance of the suicide gesture in the military. Am J Psychiatry. 1967;123:854–861. - U’Ren RC, Conrad FE, Patterson PH. A year’s experience in student mental health at West Point. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130:643–647.

from page 11 - www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/recruit_medicine/RM-ch17.pdf

Kiwi 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this some of what you're talking about?

Racially Charged German Video Aired By KIRSTEN GRIESHABER AP BERLIN (April 14) -

A video showing a German army instructor telling one of his soldiers to envision African-Americans in the Bronx while firing his machine gun was broadcast Saturday on national television. The video, coming after scandals involving photos of German soldiers posing with skulls in Afghanistan and the abuse of recruits by instructors, seemed likely to raise more questions about training practices in Germany's conscript army.

"We can no longer talk about an isolated case," said Lt. Juergen Rose of the Darmstaedter Signal, a group of current and former army officers and sergeants who independently review military procedures. "Things like this don't happen in the army on an everyday basis, but unfortunately in recent years there have been a number of comparable incidents."

The instructor tells the soldier, "You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting your mother in the worst ways ... Act." The soldier fires his machine gun several times and yells an obscenity several times in English. The instructor then tells the soldier to curse even louder.

The video is the latest embarrassment for the German army. Eighteen army instructors are currently on trial for allegedly abusing and humiliating 163 recruits in 2004. Last year, newspapers published photos of German soldiers in Afghanistan posing with a skulls - including one who exposed himself while holding a skull.

seems that abu grahib and things like this are examples of bullys generating mobbing behavior by bullying those under them to go against what they know to be "the right thing" 172.166.134.77 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask these questions in the hope of stimulating discussion that will come to improve the article.

How should a law be written to stop bullying? What does the number of bullied nerds divided by the number of nerds equal? Why not separate bullies and targets by classroom? What is the origin of bullying in history? Can bullies be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Do you know if your children are going to be a target? Does bullying disrupt a student’s ability to learn or a school’s ability to educate? Is bullying like saying "look what is going to happen to you if you become the leader of a rebel group"? 201.80.179.2 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you read WP:NOT you will find that speculation on how anything should be done (such as "How should a law be written to stop bullying?") is considered "Original Research" and cannot be included WP:OR. Same goes for speculation on whether your children are going to be a target, let alone such abstract speculations as "Why not separate bullies and targets by classroom?" or "Is bullying like saying "look what is going to happen to you if you become the leader of a rebel group"?". Wikipedia is not a soapbox see WP:NOT Having said that, there certainly is room for more valid, cited information on:

• History of bullying - though I think we need to discuss defining parameters for that VERY carefully. THe problem being that most warfare throughout history is a form of bullying, but surely it does not belong here?? I would be very surprised if there were not at least some references to bullying in both the Classics, and the Bible, if somebody knows enough to dig them up, as a starting point. Also, I can tell you that among the last jueniles to be executed at Newgate London were two boys who were sentenced to die, in essence, for standing by and doing nothing while another boy was killed, in what must surely have been a well documented, and extreme incident of school bullying in the late 18th century?
• Can bullies be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress? - Any references to provision for this under international law, can, and should be mentioned and properly referenced.
• Does bullying disrupt a student’s ability to learn or a school’s ability to educate? - Any references to properly conducted research finding on this?

-- Zeraeph 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody ever tried using cameras and microphones against bullying? Sabinfigaro ( talk) 10:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Were corrupted politicians bullies? Sabinfigaro ( talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a succinct distinction between bullying and hate crime??? Emmett2002 ( talk) 11:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it said that it can take 10 years for people to recover from bullying. I think I heard this in the context of school bullying but I would be interested to know if this could be extended to workplace bullying as well. Is there any reference for this that can be used? If there is the article could be modified to show this.

Soarhead77 14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, life is not so black and white. The effects may last a life time on some people, while other people may perceive it as 'character building' and thus do no need a 'recovery' in the traditional sence of the word at all. As with most psychological traumas, most people simply incorperate the experience as time goes by.

Again, this is not simply based on one factor or another and the range of factors makes this quite a complicated issue in practice (like asking wether or not smoking will give you cancer).

What exactly is wrong with bullying, will someone tell me

I think if you read the main article your questions will be answered

Soarhead77 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think more needs to be said on what can be done, in particular in school bullying, including what the kids can do, but also what can the parents do and yes teachers, when it happened to me the teachers were either clueless or did not care to do a thing. I am adding my webpage with bullying resources as part of the Kids in Trouble Help Page. I am glad to see that people are starting to notice bullying more, but still not enough is being done to stop it. That comment above about what is wron with it I found most disturbing Endabusenow 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, you personal webpage is really good and worthy, but we cannot keep it in accord with WP:EL, particularly on this article where there are too many internationally recognised site to include them all.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource directory. All we do here is provide neutral information on what bullying IS. Resources on how to deal with it must go elsewhere.-- Zeraeph 10:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I AGREE U HAV LOTS OF EXPERIEMCE AND U ARE VERY NICE. LUV CANT TELL U MY NAME.COM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.236.144 ( talk) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear if this is referring to contemporary thinking or past (out dated) thinking. Rewording the section would help. Also, the suggestion that bullying the bully is the most effective response is certainly questionable. For the most part, the victim is selected by the bully precisely because they are less capable to respond in kind and also less likely to have allies to support them.

To suggest that the victim to respond in kind is likely to escalate the situation and put the victim at risk of physical injury.

Certainly, however, there was a perception that (in schools at least) that bullying was part of growing up ... kid's stuff. However, for the kids involved, it is the real thing ... they are kids and their entire world is "kid's stuff."

There is a much greater understanding of not only the short term impacts, but also the long-term impacts of bullying ... both in terms of the bullies and the bullied. Specifically there are now studies that look at potentially causal relationships between problems that emerge later in life and roles as either (or both) bullies and bullied as children.

There seems to be little in this article that links childhood bullying and long term social consequences; an area that is receiving an increasing amount of attention from both academic and practical view-points.

Female violence (google), domestic vice (the common but rarely acknowledged use and misuse of sexual and relational power for money, 'success' and control in marriage or other 'respectable' relationships), relational aggression, parental alienation or other forms of alienation, ostracism or shunning are forms or psychological bullying often used by the 'fairer' sex for bullying and are sometimes used by men as well. These kinds of bullying although far more subtle than 'male' bullying are well known to cause serious psycho-social damage to the targets. Any complete article on bullying needs to include all forms of bullying. 72.215.181.137 02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read this page but did not find any reason why it really happens.

I might say that people who are in someway naive or they tend to show appeal or superiority seem to have signs of stupidity in human.While a human is not a animal but those who tend to tell superiority show some behaviors of animals.Bullying it mostly appears in work and is inevitable at school regions and there I could say only the "Stupid" individuals turn agressive instead solving problems in logical manner instead of using agression. I mean there is a link between intelligence and bullying.

This maybe not sourced infromations but I expressed it and since this is a page of discussion I really want a defenition for bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.81.147 ( talk) 17:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely; there is a lot of description on what bullying is, what it causes when people experience it, organizations that exist to deal with it, and so on, but nowhere on either this page or related pages is there any discussion on the causes of bullying. I am hardly an expert (other than being bullied myself as a kid, like many), but I think this is a pretty big omission, and would like to have someone knowledgeable correct it, if possible. Dougom ( talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An anon contributed this:

Grandparents and Parents believe buyyling won't happen in Special Needs School well it does. The Teachers and Staff in Speical Needs School of the North Yorkshire Area say things like: "He She Stands Up For Him/Herself," "If You Go Out There You'll Get Lost," "Don't Want You To Go There Anymore," when they say things like that to you at Special Needs School it's racial descrimination cause your at a Special Needs School that really does believe your not allowed to do normal or go through normal or have normal things in life cause your at a Special Needs School. They make it out as though your ill all the time especially when one becomes ill and they work out as though what you go through at certain ages such as when your age 13 pubity happens either in class shower home or outside to them it's a crime when it's legal and common for one to go through changes of pubity and extentions of body at that age. Don't send your Sons & Daughters to Special Needs School. You've been warned. Then when someone else goes through pubity after the Teachers and Staff and from others outside of Special Needs School beat them up they work out that that happened to you too without Teachers and Staff realising that it happens to us all at that age and then the Teachers and Staff at Special Needs School laugh about with an evil grinn as if it's a joke if your telling them so. Even when evidence comes in of it does happen to you at that age then they disregard it as your mistake and crime cause they've really realised that they've made a mistake cause they don't want to get sacked etc. The Teachers and Staff at Special Needs Schools are just Bullies and Jerks in some of them of the North Yorkshire Area. You've been wanred.

It may be important stuff (life experience tells me it is, but that is WP:OR, seeing it as "Bullying" is somkething I hadn't thought of though) but it really needs citation and writing up in an encyclopaedic style. ---- Zeraeph ( talk) 19:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoo, strange.

Summary, slightly more encyclopedic and less rambly. Uncited, for now. Mostly anecdotal. Needs more work, lots and LOTS of work, or a definite zap.

Legal guardians of special needs students believe bullying does not happen, though an anon's as-yet unsubstantiated WP:OR says that it does. The teachers and staff of these schools seem to misinterpret these instances of bullying as standing up for oneself. Anon believes that it is racial discrimination, though it has not been shown that all special needs students are, in fact, of a separate and removed race from non-special needs students. Furthermore, Anon believes that these teachers believe that these students cannot lead normal lives and have some sort of fatal illness. Anon does not recommend sending your children to these schools, and warns against the physical abuse they may encounter. The teachers will, apparently, laugh with an evil grin "as if it's a joke", and disregard any solid evidence as if it were the special needs student's fault for fear of losing their jobs.

Cheers. 90.178.52.11 ( talk) 19:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A bully may often be a bully and a victim at the same time. Most bullies have been hurt at one time, and need help, not isolation.

vs

However many bullies have never suffered bullying themselves and only bully others because it is fun and it has nothing to do with being bullied when they were younger, to impress other people or to be socialy accepted.

Psychology/sociology deals with subjects that are hard to quantify and so often lead to contradictions like this which would indicate to me that we should be honest and say we just don't know, rather than put in statements like 'most..' or 'many...'

Kghose ( talk) 15:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The two statements aren't in contradiction when one does not assume that the victimization mentioned in the first statement is from bullying, that first type of bully cold be the victim of other forms of abuse.

I think that Olweus noted somewhere - I could not find it anymore - that a small proportion of bullies consisted of these 'for fun' types whom he thought had been victims who had come to believe that their bullies derived pleasure from bullying. Fenke ( talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the situation is different in other English-speaking countries, but the US has indeed provided a legal definition for bullying. I'm suprised that the lead paragaraph would state outright that there is no legal definition. Indeed, this sort of obvious error makes one wonder about the reliablity of other articles.

How is bullying defined in state laws?

• Several states do not define bullying in their state laws. Those that do define the term vary in the types of behaviors that constitute bullying. Examples include the following: Colorado: “Any written or verbal expression, or physical act or gesture, or a pattern thereof, that is intended to cause distress upon one or more students.” Georgia: “Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury on another person…or any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm.” [2]

And this wasn't even hard to find. I just googled "bullying legislation" and followed one of the first 10 links. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some suggest these rare but horrific events have led schools to try harder to discourage bullying, with programs designed to teach students cooperation, as well as training peer moderators in intervention and dispute resolution techniques, as a form of peer support.

Who makes this suggestion? And is the suggestion than it is mostly the risk that bullying might lead to school shootings, that motivates anti-bullying campaigns? Not that bullying is in itself wrong?

Also, are the programs listed above the only things that are advised? Are there any schools that try making the bullies stop, with counseling, detention or expulsion? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a {{ main}} link to school bullying, but that redirected here. Is this is hint that most bullying takes place in school? Or that schools tolerate it, or what? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. For the 'External Links' section, could you please add: Bullying. No way! (Australia - schools) [3] Bullying. No way! website is an ongoing collaborative initiative representing, and funded by, all Australia's education authorities (Federal, State and Territory, Catholic and Independent) for the benefit of all school communities. It provides trusted information about bullying, harassment and violence and the development of safer and more supportive school communities, lots of examples of effective practice contributed by schools, artworks, poetry and writing by students and a growing bank of ideas for teachers and school leaders. It addresses both the obvious signs of bullying as well as the underlying issues of power and discrimination such as homophobia. It's non-commercial and doesn't use or pay for advertising, however it comes up #1 or #2 in Australian and world Google searches and receives a lot of visitors from Australia and the US. (Wikipedia's bullying page usually comes first of course!) Is it possible to include it in the list? Thank you. Chris Henderson, project officer, national Safe and Supportive School Communities project. Chrisjune ( talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say that's a better link that the current Australia link and replace it accordingly. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program was designed for students in the elementary, middle, and secondary schools to understand and improve the concept of bullying. It has been implemented in more than a dozen countries around the world. This program has shown positive results in reducing bullying among students who are educated in the program. It provides the students with questions and answers and shows them what to do if bullying happens to them or even around them. It also gives them ways to handle bully-like situations. The more this program spreads the more likely bullying is to decrease in school districts all around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ers4 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignorant Americans! Now go fix it! Americans are so stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.252.151 ( talk) 09:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility, please. I think the word is appropriate here, given the usage. And by the way, we can all see you are frm Vermont. The "Ignorant Americans" stuff is unwarranted. Snowfire51 ( talk) 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you going to ban me? I was trying to improve Wikipedia! By the way, the use of hopefully in the article is not correct. Obviously I enjoyed more education than you. No offense. 76.178.252.151 ( talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to rephrase the sentence. 76.178.252.151 ( talk) 10:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just made Wikipedia a little better. I just made Wikipedia slightly less torturous for those of us who are geniuses to read. 76.178.252.151 ( talk) 10:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"...for those of us who are geniuses to read." Um, nicely put. Judging by your grammar, I'm guessing you don't fit into the category of reading genius then? 212.84.123.184 ( talk) 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

HAH burn!

No matter how well meant it may be, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "how-to guide" and it is inappropriate to have lists of "what can/should be done" to stop bullying. Personally, I especially find the "teach child how to protect him/herself physically and verbally" -- which is one of the reasons that those who are bullied are often bullies themselves (citable, but no, I'm not going to look it up). Childhood bullying is both psychologically and sociologically a true niche with truly unique non-overlapping features.

This article also focuses almost exclusively on childhood bullying and it should be migrated to its own article page as it has always deserved more room for coverage with the vast amount of exclusively relevant research. This would leave Bullying to be more appropriately developed as an umbrella article about the psychological and sociological roots of bullying behavior and the development of bullying personalities. Spotted Owl ( talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It was lifted a few months ago but this article continues to get vandalised on a daily basis-- Penbat ( talk) 10:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am up for protecting this page, it is under continuous attack from people with conflicting interests and therefore a sham. Wikipedia seems to lack the type of control needed to prevent this. Dixx ( talk) 07:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is essential that this is covered in this article. Projection allows the emotionally flawed bully to offload his own inadequacies and feelings of shame onto a victim and claiming that the victim is to blame and the bully is the victim.-- Penbat ( talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is a project in Australia designed to form Angel groups within schools of bullied students and to provide them with support. It also has a program for teachers to use to deal with bullying in schools and teach tolerance to students and for schools to work together to help bullied students and deal with bullying. It also uses the state public transit system to set up safe areas and is training transit officers in how to identify bullying. see School Angels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qplanet ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

bullying is a very bad thing to do and no one should do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.176.93 ( talk) 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to question the validity of this statement:

Bullies hurt people verbally and physically because they themselves have been the victim of bullying, (e.g. a bullying child who is abused at home, or bullying adults who are abused by their colleagues).

While it may be true in certain cases, I don't think this statement such be given as the sole explanation for bullying behaviour. In any case, would it be possible to at least back this statement with some reference? Hroswith ( talk) 13:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the External Links section for bullying, I find this at top of the list:

• Bully Prevention Resources

The title for this link is "bully prevention resources" a very generic, seemingly non-commercial link. Follow it, and you find it's a company that does presentations at schools using their mascot "Bully the Frog"! One gets the feeling this link was added by the bullyfrog.com people themselves. Removing it. (By the way, Im very new to wikipedia, so: Im not sure what the procedure is. Should I have brought up issue here, waited for feedback, then acted. Acted, let someone else revert if i was incorrect, etc. etc. Any way, pls drop me a line if I'm out of line, but this external link seems out of line: someone clicks it thinking, "Oh, A compendium of resources for this issue," then hits a site trying to sell "Bully the Frog" to grade schools? Crazy.) At the time someone has a legitimate link for the given rubric "Bully Prevention Resources" we will use that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petzl ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullying is really bad and I dont understand why people do it. It makes people feel bad about themselves and some people commit suecide. So, why do they do it?

While bullying is talked about often in schools, it is grossly over dramatized. It does not occur as often as people think it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddy1000 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1850405,00.html

This is a TIME article about bullying. It would make a good source or an EL. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that all the documentaries about bullying always and I mean always have some sort of "Bullies have problems and that gives them an excuse" part. Like thats supposed to make people feel better. I really hope they ban those things. seriously I really do ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.100.92 ( talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

When It Happens

Bullieing usually occurs during 2 people mainly, the bully and the victim but often there are by-standers around while it happens, it can be physical or verbal. Often people become bullies after getting bullied in the past sometimes bullies do it to feel like they have power over someone else. It can sometimes be prevented by talking to adults or the bully but sometimes it doesn't stop so easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.45.34 ( talk) 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think reference 21 is not correct: see www.ustreas.gov/usss/ntac/ssi_guide.pdf It should read: Threat Assessment in Schools: a guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates, by Robert A. Fein, Bryan Vossekuil, William S. Pollack, Randy Borum, William Modzeleski, and Marisa Reddy. Rainsound ( talk) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bullying takes place mainly in the hallways. many teachers don't keep their eyes on the hallways and it causes them to see alot less of what goes on in them. many kids get phushed and shoved and the teachers never see it cause they are to busy to take one quick look. this should be stopped!!! NOW!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.118.74 ( talk) 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. This is my first time editing a wiki article, and its really just tiny change. Instead of recognized, they typed recognised. Maybe, somewhere else that is the way you spell it, but I do not believe so. I know this is a miniscule mistake, but I am only trying to improve Wikipedia. -- Tanagram ( talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a mistake - it's just the British spelling of the word. Both spellings are correct. 71.202.109.55 ( talk) 04:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

but my experience has been that if you stand up to a bully, they will back down every time. does anyone have any suggestions for where i might look for methods for dealing with a bully so that i can add a section? Statesboropow ( talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bullying is not a phenomena that arived one day from outer space. Bullies often have personality disorders such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Some bullies may back down but many will bully even worse as they hate criticism (narcissistic rage). You can only win against a bully if you can find someone in a position of authority who has leverage over the bully.-- Penbat ( talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My own personal experience has been that, despite the well-worn cliché, bullies do not back down. It just escalates the fight until the stronger person (the bully) vanquishes, and likely injures, the weaker or less-coordinated person (the victim). This is why it's crucial to get the authorities involved is soon as this behavior appears. 71.202.109.55 ( talk) 04:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

i on't really think that bullying should be allowed but even if it is not allowed people still do it and i hate it it can even include hitting someone which is the bad one and saying something that would hurt the other persons feelings and if it ever happened to me i would not like it at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.218.133 ( talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I can explain this contradiction in terms of pathological narcissism. The false self of a narcissistic bully has high self-esteem. The true self of a narcissistic bully has low self-esteem. I havent put it in as I dont have a suitable supporting citation at present.-- Penbat ( talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not reading a section on how potential bully victims overcome bullies? I don't want to hear about what comes after bullying, but as it occurs. Why isn't there a section on standing up to the bully? Is it because we don't want people to overcome life challenges on their own ie: Erik Erikson's stages of development. Wouldn't it seem that if a child defeated their bully, that they would succeed in regards to several of development's challenges? ........ 67.175.118.239 ( talk) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's usually not possible for the victim to effectively fight back. And the bully knows it -- that's why he picks on the weaker or less athletic or less coordinated person in the first place. Do you ever see a bully harassing the captain of the football team? 71.202.109.55 ( talk) 04:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, humans have a long history of using thier brains against other (much physically stronger) animals. The same could well apply between humans themselves.

Under the map of which U.S. states have which kind of anti-bullying laws, the key to the map is as follows (color-coding is omitted here):

"Some states in the United States have implemented laws to address school bullying."

"Law prohibits bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity"

"Law prohibits bullying of students based on sexual orientation"

"School regulation or ethical code for teachers that address bullying of students based on sexual orientation"

"Law prohibits bullying in school but lists no categories of protection"

"No statewide law that specifically prohibits bullying in schools"

It appears that whoever chose the ordering of the categories here intended them to start with the strongest laws and progressively list weaker and weaker laws.

But the next-to-last category is clearly the strongest by far, since it outlaws ALL forms of bullying without qualification. This category should go first (and be coded with the color at one extreme of the color gamut used). The rest of the ordering is adequate.

Of course, once an anti-bullying law mentions only certain categories of bullying, then (without further information) the implication is that all other categories of bullying are legal. Daqu ( talk) 01:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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.