Talk:Intimidation

Historically, intimidation is notable as an aspect of fighting methods and military strategies. This lens needs more article space. Tlogmer ^{Talk / Contributions} 06:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Injury or harm?

I understand that intimidation sometimes makes a person have a certain degree of fear that they will be harmed in some way, but that is not the only situation in which intimidation occurs. For example, you may be intimidated by someone who is very talented/much more talented than yourself. The only thing being hurt in that case is pride. And someone may not intentionally be intimidating, but may just be an intimidating person because they have an extreme amount of fame, beauty, power, money, popularity, talent, etc. Another example is a man being too intimidated by a woman's beauty to approach her and ask her out on a date.

See what I mean? Intimidation isn't just used in, say, football games or fights; people can be unintentionally intimidating, and intimidation doesn't have to invoke fear of injury or harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.207.111 (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tort and offence

Three party intimidation is an economic tort in England and Wales. The two party case is not well understood. There is an offence called "intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise" under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s.241, which can specifically be committed by "intimidation". James500 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also a statutory offence of intmidating witnesses, etc. James500 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph applies only to the last section “As a criminal offense”

The introduction paragraph excludes meanings of intimidate outside of the legal sphere, and thus only introduces one section of the article. Erudecorp ? * 00:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Criminal threatening

There was a stub without any cited sources at criminal threatening, and the content seemed about the same, so I made it a redirect to Intimidation. The original article is at Talk:Intimidation/Criminal threatening. I wasn't able to find any tidbits that weren't already covered better here, but I thought I'd hold out so people could review. --ESP (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Montana?

Really, that's all I wanted to know about this subject, was the state of Montana's stance. Is that germaine, or really the most applicable legal view? 184.7.170.184 (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intimidation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103150900/http://www.together.gov.uk/category.asp?c=283 to http://www.together.gov.uk/category.asp?c=283

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Use by animals?

Animals use intimidation as well as humans, so I don’t know why they aren’t included on this article. Pogeons (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Massive removals by MrOllie

Hi pals, I'm wondering why MrOllie deleted all of my edits (from September 2023) with no explanation, other than being a spammer/bot (? (not sure about that though, I don't fully understand the Wikipedia codes yet). Some people had already deleted/modified some parts of my edits, which is obviously cool, but now, they've just been completely eliminated. I don't understand why the "Canada" section was removed in the legislation part, and I don't understand why the bit about intimidation in a domestic violence context was taken out either. Totally open to shorten both, but this seems a bit intense. Didicool14 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@mrollie Didicool14 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

For the reasons explained at Talk:Abusive power and control, as you well know. MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your main issue seemed to be with the Côté and Lapierre article, which has not been cited in my work on this page. Was there any other reason? Didicool14 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish and @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I'd also appreciate your input on this page, if you have the time/energy for it. I've read and thought about your comments on the AP&C page, @SMcCandlish, and agree that I did not approach this in a constructive way. Anyways, I'd like to have some of these edits published, so please let me know what I can do for this to happen. Didicool14 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems worth some discussion. Didi, what's your rationale that these are actually reliable sources? MrOllie, is there some issue you want to raise with the author Stark? With the publisher Les Presses de l’Université du Québec? With the "via" providing the material, StopVAW.org (and do we ever even care about the conduit rather than the original publisher?) When it comes to the large block of legal material, we can't really use primary sources (bare case documents off government archive servers) to make complex legal claims on Wikipedia, per WP:AEIS policy. That kind of material must be based on secondary sourcing like law journal articles, books about legal and policy matters, etc. (though case documents could be added additionally as primary sourcing that legal specialists might like to see). But it would be really, really helpful to all of us if both of the not-quite-yet-editwarring parties would make a more self-contained edits with clear rationales: add a sentence or two and a source for it and why you think the source is good one and the material pertinent, then make another small edit with such a clear rationale; and if a revert seems warranted, revert a specific item with a clear rationale why the addition shouldn't be accepted. That will be easier for anyone to deal with than making a whole bunch of additions in a sweep that aren't well-explained, or doing blanket reverts that aren't well-explained.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I added infos on intimidation as domestic violence, as it's been documented to be a tactic of coercive control, and I believe that this information should be easily available to the public so that the persons who experience or witness this type of abuse can identify it. It's also an increasingly notorious topic in family law and criminal law (at least in Canada).

For the 'Canada' subsection-- I refer to the Criminal Code to state that intimidation is a criminal offense in Canada, and I then refer to multiple judicial decisions where an accused was charged with intimidation in a domestic violence context and briefly expose the facts of two of these cases to provide example of contextualized intimidation and its treatment by Canadian law. In light of your comment, I am open to let go of this bit: "Canadian courts have found abusers guilty of intimidation in domestic violence contexts. Oftentimes, abusers intimidate their partner or their ex-partner through threats so that they don’t report the abuse they sustain, or so that they refrain from collaborating to judicial procedures engaged against the abuser."

For the 'Intimidation as domestic violence'-- Les Presses de l'Université du Québec is an academic edition, so I feel it's pretty safe to use. Evan Stark truly is the leading expert on coercive control, internationally. He first coined the term many years ago, and is widely published on the subject, among other with Oxford University Press. The same work is referred to, albeit at different pages, in this chapter as it is one of his rare publications that is not behind a paywall, and I privileged those sources so that editors can verify my work, and readers can deepen their readings. I also reference Janet Mosher's work, who is a law prof at Osgoode.

Thank you for your advice on editing piece by piece! Will make sure to do so in the future. Didicool14 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)