Template talk:Bullying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Related Topics[edit]

Most articles listed under 'related topics' were incredibly loosely related. They were things that can be present in bullying but aren't directly related.

Can people please not add articles that they can't site as directly, notably and significantly related to bullying, and that deserve a mention.(unsigned)

That is completely untrue. Bullying is often treated as a mysterious social phenomina that somehow appeared one day from outerspace. But if you delve deeper into the underlying psychology you will discover that the mechanics of bullying are very well explained by various psychological phenomena, some of which were understood back in Freud's day. --Penbat (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point, but one such article was 'profanity' which although it can pop up in some bullying cases, it's not interrelated in any way. Another case was psychopathy; while it may be present in some cases, not al bullies are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are bullies, i'm not doubting that there is an overlap, but there is no direct, notable relationship. It may be worth nothing somewhere in the main bullying article that some bullying is a result of psychopathy and to mention in the main psychopathy article that some psychopaths turn to bullying. However, the relationship is not close enough to warrant a mention on the template (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Profanity is really covered by verbal abuse and it doesnt bother me particularly if it is taken out. But the point is that profanity on its own doesnt in itself constitute bullying, but it is if it is used in conjunction with other bullying elements. Similar with rudeness, rudeness on its own is not bullying but it may typically be part of a package of bullying elements.
Regarding psychopaths, nobody is saying that all psychopaths are bullies and vice versa but there is plenty of authoritative literature, such as "Snakes in Suits" demonstrating that there is quite a strong link between the two. I suspect you have preconceived ideas of what a psychopath is - like a Hollywood axe murderer maybe, but the definition of a psychopath is broader than you probably realise. Often the chief bully (like a gang leader) may be psychopathic but there may be an army of non-psychopathic bullies who may do his dirty work for him. --Penbat (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that not all psychopaths are like the ones in films. I would appreciate it if you didn't treat me as if i was ignorant. I've removed 'profanity' seeing as there's no dispute there but as for the 'related' articles, i'll make a list of them, explaining my opinion of each one individually.
  • Blame shifting redirects to 'blame', which is a fairly universal thing and not specific enough to bullying
  • Complex post-traumatic stress disorder can occur from bullying, so i think fair enough to this one, but i think it should be mentioned/discussed in the main article rather than added as a footnote
  • Emotional Blackmail should be in the 'elements' section, rather that 'related articles'.
  • Envy is not an essential part of bullying and is far too non-specific to be in the template
  • Narcissism is again, non-essential and non-specific
  • Personal Boundaries are a part of day-to-day life, they don't crop up in bullying situations any more or less than in most normal situations
  • Personality Disorders CAN be present in a bully, but as i said earlier about psychopathy, a mental condition that can increase the chance of someone being a bully slightly doesn't qualify. People with certain kinds of autism of schizophrenia may also have increased chances of becoming a bully but aren't mentioned, as such nor should be personality disorders
  • Psychological Projection, as with before, is more suited to the 'elements' section of the template
  • Psychological Trauma, i would put with CP-TSD in the sense that it's better off discussed in the article
  • Psychopathy isn't worth rehashing, i've been over it before
  • Rankism would fall under both the 'mention/discuss in the main article' and the 'add to the elements' sections
  • Scapegoating is like i said for envy and narcissism and, it's non essential to bullying and far too common outside of bullying situations
  • Self-Esteem, be it too much or too little of it can effect bullying, but it's like 'blame', it's present in most every social situations so would be like adding 'speech' or 'intellect'
  • Sycophany is not an article that to me has any relevance whatsoever. Although, i don't know everything so if you can point out a connection i'd be happy to listen
  • Victim Blaming is one i would classify as 'mention/discuss in the main article'
  • Victim Playing seems to describe a situation where someone is pretending to be bullied and therefore isn't notable
  • Victimization to me, means exactly the same as bullying, but that's just my opinion
So there are my opinions, if you have counter-arguments i'm more than happy to hear them188.223.62.45 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Jesus give me a break. I have already spent a significant amount of time answering your earlier points. I can easily justify the inclusion of the articles as they are but i would effectively have to write a long essay just for your benefit to explain it to you.--Penbat (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Give you a break? Look, i'm trying to be respectful here, i'm not harassing you, i'm just being as clear as possible188.223.62.45 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What you probably fail to understand is that bullying is just a subset of abuse and that the psychological phenomina that apply to abuse also apply to bullying. Psychological projection is a key psychological phenomina that often motivates someone to bully (or abuse) and typically claim that they themselves are the victim and the victim is the culprit. This in turn ties up very well with the concept of blame-shifting, victim playing and scapegoating. Psychological projection is also strongly associated with personality disorders, narcissism and psychopathy. Another motivation for bullying is narcissistic envy, think for examples of serious cases of school bullying where for example a schoolgirl killed herself because she was seriously bullied for being "too pretty". Also it is common for unusually academically bright children to get bullied as they are branded the "school swot" for example. I have run a support group for bullied victims for the last 6 years and these themes are frequently brought up. It is well documented that the psychological damage from abuse or bullying often is loss of self-esteem, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and psychological trauma. Rankism is relevant because bullying often involves somebody abusing their position of authority and exploiting somebody's vulnerability. Sycophancy relates to others that support (and suck up to) the bully and bully on his behalf as frequently bullying is vicarious - the chief bully (maybe the one with a personality disorder) typically employs a team of sycophants who do his dirty work for him. Without this the chief bully on his own would not be very effective. Emotional blackmail is a form of intimidation associated with psychological manipulation and bullying. Victimisation is an important concept in bullying just as much as abuse. Personal boundaries is an important concept because bullies like to continually chip away at the victim's personal boundaries so they may become helpless victims - this in turn ties in with narcissism, victimisation, self-esteem and assertiveness etc.--Penbat (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of 'rankism', i never said it should be deleted, but rather moved to the 'elements' section. 'Blame Shifting' redirects to 'Blame', which isn't directly related at all.
As for the others, i never said that they were totally unlinked but rather not linked enough to be in the 'related articles' section. They should rather be mentioned/discussed in the main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Clementi[edit]

How notable does it get? Why does one editor keep removing this? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Tyler Clementi from this template[edit]

One editor User:PM800, keeps removing this item from the template. That removal s done repeatedly and without consensus. Such repeated actions make it very difficult to assume good faith. I and others have attempted discussions with this editor, to no avail. I am now issuing vandal warnings, having warned the editor that this would happen, each time the removal is made, and am reverting the removal as vandalism.

This suicide is significant. Heck, it reached Barak Obama's mouth! It was caused by bullying. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: if User:PM800 removes Tyler Clementi again from this template, let me know and I will block them for disruption. Fences&Windows 01:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seung-Hui Cho[edit]

There is no evidence that Cho was ever a victim of bullying while at Virginia Tech. His rampage was due to a severe mental disorder, which went untreated during his time at Tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnclark (talkcontribs) 19:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

deleted - also no mention of bullying in article--Penbat (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
If anything he appears to be the bully, I will delete it again, --MarsRover (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of WIkipedia policies (etc)[edit]

Is it valid to include links to Wikipedia's own policies with regard to bullying (etc) in this template? I would like to suggest it be done on the basis that people's interest in that area may well be aroused by reading any article on the core topics addressed here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure, ive put a link to it at the start of bullying anyway, that may be enough. Incidentally, as you know, it is Wiki advice not an official Wiki policy.--Penbat (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
That was what my (etc) meant, though I concede it was ambiguous :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This reversion[edit]

No further discussion has taken place over the past couple of months. One of the main proponents, Fladrif, has been indefinitely blocked. Let's all move on and deal with this matter later if so desired. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I made this reversion because I see the content as being valid for the template in that each topic is relevant to the overall subject, bullying. The usual method is Bold Edit> Revert of bold edit > Discuss edit. This discussion is a little late in that cycle, but will serve. I can be convinced that removal is valid by good arguments, but am currently in favour of their retention. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I can get into more detail in the next couple of days, but here are a couple of observations. There are 135 links in this template, which is vastly beyond all reason and convention. I can't find the link right now, but there is a limit on the number of links that are to be put in a category template,and that limit is not to be exceeded without clear consensus. I see no attempt to reach consensus on this (or frankly on a number of category templates closely related to this one) to exceed that limit or for what a reasonable limit for this category would be. That needs to be addressed. Second, policy requires that Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. See WP:Categorization It is far from clear why the links I just removed, and why many of the other links that haven't been touched, bear any rational relation to the template, and there is nothing in the linked articles themselves that have anything to do with the topic. One example among many: [[Ad hominem] is not a personal attack, and it isn't bullying. It an informal fallacy in logic and rhetoric. This list appears to be assembled from mere whim. Third, many of the links are merely duplicitive of other links. Four of the links, for example, are simply subtopics in the Bullying main article. Others are redirects. This seems silly, quite frankly. If the template links to the article Bullying, you don't list every...in fact, you don't list any...subtopic on that page. Another problem is that many of the articles linked to are themselves nothing more than disambiguation pages without any substantive content. Anyway, this is a discussion that has to be had and good on you for getting it started. It is a vast improvement over the way this has been handled heretofore. Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I am quite content if every entry in the template is discussed, though appreciate that this would take an unusually long time. I'd like to set aside your thoughts that the template itself might be unwieldy with a large number of links. I suspect that there is no technical server issue with that and there is no client side issue. So may we, please, discount that and deal instead with the meat?
I appreciate you have little time for a few days. No-one will die if this takes a while. May I suggest that you lead this since you are a person objecting by doing the following:
  1. List those items that are, beyond question, suitable for inclusion
  2. List those items where you believe discussion may include them or exclude them
  3. List those items which you believe have no place in the template at all.
At that point we have the good basis for a discussion. At present, though I have not studied every item in detail, I see what is a broadly useful, albeit large, template. With good arguments you can convince me and others of any slimming down. At present my thoughts are that slimming down is not required, but I can be convinced. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That is a reasonable way to proceed, but I would note that in any discussion such as this, the burden is on the editors advocating inclusion of an item to justify it, not the other way around. As a practical matter, that distinction rarely of consequence, but I suspect it may be an issue here. Fladrif (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we should consider chickens and eggs to be irrelevant and simply reach a consensus in the best way available. What we have at present is a list which can be worked from. It is far easier to work from it than to determine afresh what ought to be included. Ignoring precedent, pragmatism should win the day. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with some obvious exclusions on base principles of what a template is supposed to be about.

Discuss. Fladrif (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with not linking to anything that is not on en Wikipedia itself. I had not realised there were externalised links. I'm pretty sure our templates are intended to remain internal. There may even be a policy to state that somewhere.
WIth regard to multiple links to the same article, I am not convinced. I see a direct link to the correct position in a longer article as useful. You will have to work hard to convince me to alter that opinion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a good start. I imagine that this will take some time. I'll make the change we agreed upon, and we'll continue this discussion later. Consider this in the meantime on your second point: You must agree that it would be improper to link to every single one of the dozens of subtopics in the Bullying article in this template. What is special about the subtopics linked in the template that they should be singled out for inclusion assuming you are correct in your position? Fladrif (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I need a break, and will consider your point. I may not answer today. Before you edit too widely do remember that we are but two voices. I would hate just the two of us to make a consensus here. I will not revert an edit removing external items, but I do feel either a true policy must be invoked or a wider consensus built. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I did get time after all. The rationale for linking to several sections of (eg) Bullying is that those sections, while valid, have (at least for the present) insufficient information to warrant full articles. Where there is a full article that article is linked to directly. That is what makes the subtopics somehow 'special'. If you find one that is not linked, which is a valid bullying topic, and which does not have its own article then my argument is that such a section should be added to the template. It is possible that we reach an impasse, you and I, on this element. We truly need other eyes. I have noticed that there is some friction between you and Penbat. I am not interested in the history of that, but their opinion is as important to me as yours, and other editors have thoughts, too. We could probably do with some section headings in this discussion, too.
I am interested in a good consensus to ensure we have a good template. I am interested off Wikipedia in the prevention of bullying (and shoudl declare that here), but that is just an interest as far as this discussion is concerned. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I do see a peculiarity with Betrayal in that it links to a meaty section in Betrayal this is the bullying section. That section refers to the main article Bullying. On studying that one I think the problem is in the Betrayal article. The explicit main article link is probably not required in it. I think over-enthusiastic work in the Betrayal article is the issue with that one and the template should stay as it stands for that odd seeming link. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • After reading this long discussion, of which most of it seems to be an attempt to establish a set of rules for the discussion instead of discussing the topic of the discussion, I'd like to offer a couple points and thoughts that I have about it.
    1. I've seen both of you suggest that there are parts of policy or guidelines that say certain things should or shouldn't be, yet neither of you have taken the time to hunt down and link what you remember as being there. I find this is somewhat counter-productive and encourage you both to do that.
    2. As for the content of the template itself. I see no problem with offering a reasonable number of interwiki links provided they are not covered by something on this wiki at this time and there can be no dispute that the content is something of enough importance that it should be included until a time when such an article can be created on en.wikipedia.
    3. As far as including specific links to sections of a page even though the main page is included. Wikipedia's own guideline template does this very thing. Take for example the list for Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines#Article style, almost a dozen of the subpages, which are all transcluded on the main WP:MOS page, are linked separately in Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What I "may" suggest in this case is that the template use {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} instead of {{Navbox}} and that the items that have multiple sections be put into groups that are collapsed by default as to not render and excessively Loooong template to view.
  • Those are the only two issues I've seen discussed here. If there are more, I would be happy to offer my opinion on those as well. Technical 13 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It is sometimes important to determine the shape of the table. I understand your exhortation to find the chapters and verses. I find, in general, that this is the last stage of a discussion. Firing the big gun of "This policy says so, thus it must be correct" tends to alienate other protagonists, and I would prefer not to do that unless it becomes unavoidable. A search for common ground outranks a search for chapters every time in building genuine consensus. When appropriate we may do things differently.
The interwiki links that have been removed offer little other than DicDefs, I think. I'm as happy that they go as that they remain. Such value that they added was finite but small.
I agree with your point on sectional linking in a template. And about the collapsing of the template Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
With respect to sectional linking, my concerns are twofold. First, is it necessary or simply repetitive? Second, what is the logic behind the selection of any particular section that makes it worthy of linking? For example Bullying#Bystanders. In a template approaching a gross of entries, why this? The material linked to is hardly enlightening and certainly not of principle or even secondary significance to the topic. The same kind of careful consideration ought to be given to every single entry. In other cases, the template is overloaded by unnecessary linking. There are something like 10 links to either articles or subarticles on bullying in the workplace. Simply sending the reader to Workplace bullying is going to get the reader to where they want to go.
Some of the things linked to have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter, or are so tangential that the links are pointless and entirely extraneous. Ad hominem is one. It is a redirect from Personal abuse, which is absurd in and of itself, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with personal abuse. It is an informal logical fallacy. It is not Bullying or anything even remotely related to bullying. Culture of fear is another. The article is about political manipulation of the public for political ends through fear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bullying. Defamation is about the legal definition of definition. There are many more examples. There are links that are repetitive. Control actually redirects to Control freak. Pick one, not both. Other links like Sycophancy (which is by and large devoid of content) Depression Whistleblowing appear to be linked to on the most tenuous of pretexts. Some bullies have sycophants or are themselves sycophants to bigger bullies? Some bullies and bullied people get depressed? Some whistleblowers get bullied? It is not a service to the reader to have 135 links in a template like this when a large percentage of the links have so little to do with the subject matter. Fladrif (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello. I am watchlisting this discussion, but have never edited the template before. I also support the use of sectional linking and collapsing in the template per the above reasonings by Timtrent and Technical 13. Also, I have asked members of the Psychology WikiProject, as well as User:Bbb23 and User:Ched, two uninvolved administrators for input as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sectional linking. provided it is to sections that do not have their own articles, is, I think, an emerging consensus here, based upon rationale, not upon weight of numbers. I believe we need to consider the components linked to. But what we should not do is to flit form area to area. If this is worth doing it is worth doing with rationale. If it takes a while then it takes a while. It's important, yes, but it is not urgent. Readers of Wikipedia expect a certain standard, but it is not very high. We need to exceed that standard wherever we can, but not as an emergency.
We also need some discipline on this talk page. Rather than my commenting on the two or more examples added recently above, may I request a subheading, please, and the discussion to be held in that subheading. My rationale is that, while we are unimportant, the decisions we make need to be tracked easily by those who come after us. "Shape of the table" again I'm afraid, but discipline also helps us to see what has been agreed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Are these links extraneous[edit]

I've extracted these from the discussion above. I may have made errors in placing them. If so my apologies. Each requires discussion as far as I can see from the material above. I am placing them here without making a comment about their inclusion or otherwise.

I think we should add others to the list above, and consider turning them into level 4 headings [====] to discuss them in their sections. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is fine. I've created a working draft for the modifications to the template here so that we don't disrupt the site while making modifications. I've posted a test of the sandbox template here to request some more input on the topic from other editors on a page that I know has been active lately. Technical 13 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem, personal abuse[edit]

The one is a redirect to the other. Neither of them are forms of bullying. They are abuse of language, not of people. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to place a counter argument. Personal abuse, even of just one person by the same other person, most assuredly is a from of bullying. If, every time you as victim, see the abuser, and they call you a useless little shit every time, in the end that abuse is sufficient to get through even the toughest defence. It may appear mild to an outsider, but to a sufferer it becomes enormous. If two people join together to call you the same name, that personal abuse is multiplied.
Thus I am against Personal abuse being removed. I find Ad hominem to be wholly different.To me it is a nasty stratagem in a debate, not a matter of bullying, nor of personal abuse. I have not checked which article redirects to the other. Surely they are not mutual redirect partners? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be for removing the link to Personal abuse if there was actually an article on the subject matter. Instead, it's just a redirect to Ad hominem, which we all agree is just a debate tactic and neither abuse nor bullying. As it stands, having a link to "personal abuse" is pointless. If we keep Personal abuse as a link either (i) we have to redirect it somewhere else (where is a good question, because all of the various "Abuse" articles are just circular disambiguation pages) or (ii) have somebody write some sourced content for it. Fladrif (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the redirect of "Personal abuse" from "Ad hominem" to "Incivility" Of course, we already have "Incivility" as a link, so that doesn't solve all the problems. Fladrif (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Culture of fear[edit]

I could see this being deemed relevant. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought so based on the title, but the actual text is strictly limited to the creating or exploiting fear in the masses to obtain political ends, and doesn't really have anything to do with the interpersonal in general or bullying in particular. Fladrif (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would say that is a deficiency of the article, not of the template. I have worked in a culture of bullying and fear. It was unpleasant. I suggest a note on the target article's talk page that it is deficient would be appropriate, together with an expansion of it in at least a section? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would think that to be an improper WP:COATRACK of the Culture of fear article - the "culture of bullying and fear" you describe in your former workplace is a completely different thing, outside of the scope of the article. But, I would reserve final judgment until actually seeing proposed, sourced text. What should not be done is to simply place a note on the article talk page saying that a new, really important section on bullying needs to be added . I've seen way too many notes already (not from you) at way too many articles exactly like that - notes that have sat there for two, three or more years, with no sourced text forthcoming. Until the article says something sourced and relevant to the Template, it is improper for the Template to direct people to the article. Fladrif (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


This isn't bullying; one wouldn't refer to slander and libel etc. as "abuse". "Vilification" in the loose sense of the word, maybe, but Defamation is (rightly) mostly concerned with the legal aspects of the concept, not the connotations of the word. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined against inclusion of this term unless it can be demonstrated that the article is deficient. Drmies is persuasive on this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Organizing the specific types of links under discussion[edit]

{ec}I understand completely, and that's a good way to go. Here's a crack at it. If you want to reorganize it, go right ahead, but be warned: I suffer from CDO - it's the same thing as OCD except the letters are in the right order!!!!Let's see where we stand.Fladrif (talk)

Links outside of en.wikipedia[edit]

I believe that Fiddle Faddle and Fladrif are in agreement that this Template should only link to things that are on en.wikipedia, and not to things outside that domain. No one else has commented. Links to Wiktionary entries have been removed from the template.

Additional comments:

Collapsing the Template[edit]

I believe that Fiddle Faddle, Fladrif and Technical 13 are in agreement that the Template should be changed to make subsections collapsible for the benefit of the reader. No one else has commented. This hasn't been done yet.

Additional comments

This section didn't exist when I hit edit for an above section... See Template:Bullying/sandbox. Technical 13 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The overall structure of the template you've put together looks good. I confess that I'm surprised that, even compressed, it's as big as it is. As we go through this stuff, we can discuss whether all of the subheadings are necessary, or if any of them can be combined, or - going the other way - there are any others that should be added. Fladrif (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Something that may not be evident is that the template is designed such as it is suppose to detect which page it is on and expand the associated group only. There are a couple groups that link to sections of Bullying and I'm not exactly sure how it is going to react to those... We should work on condensing those first. Also, I can see that I need to uncollapse the table by default for the outer level, not the groups. Technical 13 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In terms of formatting I like the layout with the title of the section on the left, and dislike centralised headings. I do not object to an "all collapsed or all expanded" approach. Whether that is compatible with a collapsing box or not I cannot remember. I did some navbox with collapsing things once but it was long ago. Mediawiki software itself handles the boldface type recognising the page that is linked to as the page we are on. Most non editing folk just do not notice this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It is hard to see what it does without putting it on a few of the pages linked to from it. You could post it on the talk pages for those pages similar to what I did asking for opinions on Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd. Technical 13 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Linking to sub-sections of articles[edit]

I suggested that the Template only link to articles, not to subsections, Fiddle Faddlel and Technical 13 disagree. No one else has commented. In addition, there appears to be agreement that a considered decision be made as to what subsections of articles should be linked to. The subsections currently linked to are; Parental bullying Prison bullying Bystanders Betrayal

  • I confirm that I believe the template should link to subsections of a page, but only when there is no main article on that topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments

  • I would suggest that the only one of these that I would consider sufficiently important to include in this Template is possibly parental bullying. I can be persuaded about prison bullying. Bystanders and betrayal strike me as obvious candidates for removal.Fladrif (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


A number of links appear to be merely repetitive. I have suggested removal of repetitive links. There are 10 links on the subject of Workplace bullying. "Control" and "control freak" link to the same article. No one else has commented specifically.

Additional comments

  • I would either (i) remove all the links to bullying in various work settings in favor of a single link or (ii) collapse them all into a collapsible subheading on workplace bullying. I would remove "Control", which simply redirects to "control freak"Fladrif (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated links[edit]

A number of links are directed to articles that have nothing to do with the subject matter whatsoever. Ad hominem and Culture of fear and Defamation are three previously identified above. There may be more. No one else has commented specifically

Additional comments

  • Ad hominem and culture of fear should be deleted. If other links are similarly unrelated, they should be as well. Fladrif (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It appears that we have agreement of Defamation, so I'll remove that. Fladrif (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Tangential links[edit]

A number of links appear to be so tangential to the subject matter as to be inappropriate to link. Sycophancy, Depression and Whistleblower are three identified above. There may be more. No one else has commented specifically.

Additional comments

  • I suggest that these three be deleted. The others should be gone through item by item. Fladrif (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sycophancy is not bullying and may go
  • Depression (mood) is a sympton displayed by some people who are bullied. I do not see the requirement for it in the template, but can be persuaded
  • Whistleblower is slightly more complex in that a Whistleblower tends to require protection from reprisals, but is not, I think, bullying relevant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at a macro level at the bottom section on related topics. My comments are that they are indeed related. WHat I am unsure about is the bar for inclusion of a related topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The question that should always be asked when constructing a navbox is: "does this aid navigation?" Tangential links, almost as a rule, do not. Certainly we would want to mention in articles about bullying about how depression and the like can result from bullying, but that does not make it a valuable link in a navigational template. You would put a link to an article like Symptoms of bullying into a navbox, but not the individual symptoms as that simply adds clutter. My personal golden rule on navboxes, which I noted in the discussion at the Amanda Todd talk page is: If we aren't putting this navbox on the linked article, then the article doesn't belong in the navbox. It's a little rule that helps me avoid navboxes with 125 links. Resolute 15:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that approach. Few, if any of the score of "related topics" articles are even plausibly categorized as Bullying, and it is a disservice to readers to have this kind of bloat in a template. I've been taking these a few at a time for purposes of this discussion, but nearly all of them should be eliminated in the end.Fladrif (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I Intended to be more active in this discussion but have been distracted by a few other things, some of which are in real life. With this section, since we have a broad agreement that it needs to be rendered more relevant, might we approach it with a list of the items that should remain? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I think they all should be deleted. Not a single one should be retained. Fladrif (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
From this current list: Abuse Anger Anxiety Control freak Complex post-traumatic stress disorder Dehumanization Emotional blackmail Just-world hypothesis Narcissism Personal boundaries Personality disorders Power Psychological manipulation Psychological projection Psychological trauma Psychopathy Scapegoating Self-esteem Victim blaming Victim playing Victimisation I believe we should retain Dehumanization, Emotional blackmail, Personality disorders, Psychological manipulation, Psychological trauma, Victim blaming, Victim playing, Victimisation. I say this without visiting the articles concerned, and base it upon my judgment that these topics are genuinely related. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I also disagree that this group should be deleted. While some of the articles linked to may need some TLC, I think the topics of some of them may be fundamentally related to bullying. Having been a victim of bullying growing up in school (I was an 85# 5'8" tall boy in 5th grade that was an only child of a severely torn family structure where the parents used me as a weapon against each other which destroyed any possibility of me having any self esteem not to mention I was the geeky "computer kid" that fixed all of the schools computers (that was HUGE at the time in the late 80's)). I've personally been hospitalized many times for depression and suicide attempts. That being said and perhaps offered more information than was needed, other than I wanted to make the next point clearer, I am willing to work on these articles as I perhaps have more insight into what these people that succeeded in their might have been thinking or going through at the time as well as being slightly more aware of most of where I might find reliable sources of information I can cite to improve those articles. Bottom line, in my eyes, they have a valid reason for being there. Technical 13 (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to both of your experiences, the standard here isn't personal experience and conviction. It is whether the connection of the article to the subject-matter of the template is reliably sourced. I have the sense that there are motivations at work here that are inconsistent with the task of writing an encyclopedia - that instead there are motivations to have these series of articles and links and templates be about victim advocacy. Victim advocacy isn't a bad thing - it's a good thing - but it is something for an advocacy website, not an encyclopedia. Now, if reliable sources link all these topics to the subject of bulling, that is worth discussing. Frankly, most of the articles as written and as sourced do not make that link. Fladrif (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with some easy ones: Anxiety and Psychopathy. Neither article has any text linking them to bullying. Anxiety is specifically distinguished from Fear; the former being a reaction to perception of danger, as opposed to a reaction to actual danger. Psychopathy has no apparent connection whatsoever. Given that there is no reliably sourced basis to link either to bullying, it should be easy to reach agreement. Fladrif (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't you "with all due respect" me! Okay... Let's start with those two. People who are bullied are afraid. They react to a perception of the danger of something that might be said about them or done to them, when quite often those are self-fulfilling prophecies. This means that anxiety is associated with bullying, and perhaps the article needs to have a section about the effects of bullying causing anxiety. Although psychopathy may apply to the bullies, I believe that it would be appropriate to replace it with the more current term of "antisocial personality disorder." This helps explain why some bullies are what they are and is related to bullying in general. Technical 13 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
That is not an reliably-sourced, evidence-based argument, but a mere statement of personal preference. Coatracking yet another article is a non-starter. This argument is, with all due respect, directly contrary to the applicable standards for deciding what to include, and what to exclude, from templates. Fladrif (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This goes back to my original argument though. The articles on anxiety and psychopathy will never be focused on bullying, so at most will only ever be tangental to the topic of bullying. As such, it would be appropriate to note these symptoms in an article like Symptoms of bullying/Effects of bullying, and to put that article in the template. But we should not, and do not need to, put every link that could conceivably have any connection, no matter how small, to the overall topic. This navbox should link only articles that are focused on the topic of bullying. The tangental links, such as anxiety and psychopathy, can be viewed and clicked through via the articles directly. Resolute 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me from the above that we have 3/4 editors in agreement at least on all but 8 of them. It's a start. Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It has been just you and I discussing this for the last week, and I've reverted your most recent change because there was no consensus all of those should be removed. Tim simply stated ones that should at least be kept, he did not say which ones should be gotten rid of or which ones he is neutral on. I'll spend some time today and go through all of the links and we'll see if we can't reach some kind of consensus in the next few hours. I'm sure that there are some that I can agree need to be cut. Technical 13 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been doing other things, but I do support the inclusion of some, but not all, the tangential links, and stick to my list above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


I was looking through the Jeff Weise article and sources, and they say absolutely nothing about bullying. In fact, the source cited for the statement in the article that he was frequently bullied says exactly the opposite - nobody bullied him because he was himself physically intimidating. Fladrif (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it, but does it say that he was a bully? That may have been why it was there. Also, I'm thinking the Sandy Hook incident might be useful to add to that section, if there is an article of course. Technical 13 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
No, an editor relatively recently added to the Jeff Weise article the statement that he was frequently bullied, and then added to the infobox that it was a motive for the crime, and added it to the various bullying articles and templates. The same editor added the infobox and templates at the crime article as well, but no text. The source for the statement in the Weise article says no such thing - neither that he was bullied nor, as you speculate, that he was a bully. Fladrif (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Technical 13 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


I don't know if anyone's aware of this, but Fladrif, one of the primary motivators of the discussion, has been blocked indefinitely by Ched (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and endorsed by the community, see this ANI thread. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I hate to say this but Fladrif was constantly wikihounding Penbat, the main author of the template, on several articles relating to bullying and abuse (including this particular template as well) at that time according to that ANI thread and according to Penbat, he seemed to align himself with the work of Star767, who is suspected to be a sockpuppet of the banned user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Close discussion?[edit]

No discussion has taken place over the past couple of months and the last edit on this discussion was made more than a month ago. Fladrif has been blocked indefinitely months back as explained above. May we close this discussion? Votes below:

  1. Time to move forward and deal with this matter at a later time if it's needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea it was still 'running'. Someone needs to be bold, simply, and close it, if closing is what it needs. It seems to have withered on the vine. Fiddle Faddle 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep it has. If there are no objections, I am going to close this matter immediately. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

All right. As it has already been stated above, Penbat (talk · contribs), one of the main contributors, was constantly Wikihounded by Fladrif back in March, leaving him unable to do any significant editing on the template as well as articles related to abuse and bullying. A discussion has already taken place above and Penbat did not participate in it because of Fladrif (talk · contribs)'s hounding and I participated little only to later find that Fladrif was being disruptive elsewhere in addition to the issues with Penbat (and was indefinitely blocked for chronic disruption and personal attacks in April). In any case though, I think we should start a new discussion about what we should do as I did not participate in the recent edit war in March. As consensus can change, I think we should discuss whether we should re-add the links that were previously removed. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Given this template is still a giant, bloated joke, if you wish to start a new discussion, I would suggest pointing to the specific links that you feel warrant re-inclusion and try to build a consensus. Frankly, I think it still needs to be cut further. There are far too many links that are only tangental to bullying. It dilutes the desired links. Resolute 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see the articles be worked on that are being linked to. Furthermore, I think there (sh|c)ould be some more cutting... Split the "suicide of foo" into its own navbox for starters or at very least collapse the sections... Technical 13 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Definitely cut further rather than re-add links. Resolute and Technical 13 are right on that point. Also, though wikihounding sounds horrible, and I can understand withdrawing from the discussion, I'm still not understanding why Penbat edited against consensus. I'm hoping we'll hear directly from Penbat. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems like pretty good reasons have been set out in the discussion above for cutting down a lot of the template. Of course consensus can change, but that means new arguments have to be presented. It's not a reason to stop the changes for which there is existing consensus. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it a good idea to return to the discussion. Despite the hounding-of-Penbat that user seems to have managed a decent discussion with me and other above. I am content with the alterations that have had consensus. I influenced that consensus and helped to form it. WIth regard to collapsing the template sections, I am in favour of that, though like the current format as the expanded version. I am unhappy with splitting it. The topic is broad, and the template is intended to navigate the broad topic. Fiddle Faddle 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, to clarify, that dispute with Penbat, Star767 and Fladrif happened before the above discussion took place. I think that at this point, it's time that we should request that previously uninvolved users from the Psychology project to get involved and discuss ideas as well if there are no further objections. If there is consensus to readd the links, it will be readded. But if there is consensus to remove them, it will be removed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Review_of_navigational_templates. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Template links[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus against restoring the links referred to below. There isn't really anything else to summarise from this RfC, except that a few editors think the template is too big. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we restore the links that were removed from the template back in April? (before and after) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Resolute 02:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
No: I agree that there was enough consensus without the now blocked user. Technical 13 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
When I talked to User:Penbat about this, this is what he said about this matter: "I'm quite pissed off that quite a lot of stuff has been removed from the template and ideally i would want it returned to its original state (before Fladriff got involved) and certainly no more taken out. It only got raised as an issue when Fladriff & sock-puppet Star767 piled in. Anyway these days i have WikiBurnout and am trying to do as little as possible on Wiki. I don't have the stomach to get involved in Template talk:Bullying." I hope this understands why he does not wish to get involved. Consensus can, has and always will change. With all due respect, I think I see a bit of a weak consensus and there was little participation from some administrators and other users for consensus.
But I seriously think we still need a new consensus about this matter, and that is the reason I framed and filed the RFC. There is absolutely no hurry. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - Even if there was consensus, it can still change and I would mostly support Penbat's opinion about this matter. Ideally, any edits made by users in violation of WP:BAN (i.e. Star767/Farrajak) should be reverted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I am content to discuss this again to determine a new consensus, even if the discussion is laborious. I agree with some and disagreed with other parts of the blocked user's position. Because I am in this position I must stat Neutral to the question asked above. What I support is consensus, even if it goes against my views. I am unconcerned about the fact of the blocked editor's being blocked. IN geenral the rushing to revert a blocked editor's edits can work against any consensus that obtained prior to the block. If there is a "rush to revert" I would like to see any prior consensus examined in each case. Fiddle Faddle 09:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment-- It would be helpful to me and other editors who may join this RfC if we could have before and after diffs and/or a list of the links that the RfC presenter would like replaced, so it is clear what we are making a judgement about. Thanks-- KeithbobTalk 14:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've added that to my statement. I hope this helps understand the situation somewhat. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank LS, is this really the right link?-- KeithbobTalk 02:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Link corrected. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT -I just glanced at Fladrifs diffs in the history section. There are many deletions and I'm not sure this RfC is going to work in its current set up because its so undefined and covers so much ground but...... From what I've seen...... all of the listings Fladrif deleted could be placed back in the template except these IMO this is a legitimate deletion as I think the Related Topics section goes to far afield of the central theme of the template.-- KeithbobTalk 02:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply I see where you are coming from. However I would include scapegoating. The major issue is to define the RFC. I feel we might proceed in the following manner. [Named as main proposal for the discussion that follows]
  1. Ignore Fladrif's edits completely. His blocking is a distraction
  2. Determine one by one whether each group has any inappropriate entries
  3. Where there are editors who consider that a group has inappropriate entries, reach consensus over the 'final' content of that group
In this manner, tiresome as it will most assuredly prove, we will achieve a consensus that, at a point in time, the template is 'correct', though we must recognise that it will change over time after that point.
There is a valid alternative: To declare by consensus that this RFC is impossible to resolve, and to let the template take ts chances n the hurly burly of day to day editing. [named as alternate proposal for the discussion that follows] Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Given Timtrent's statements, I concur with the above proposals and ideas on how we should proceed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Since here is no rush we can take whatever time we need to determine the route forward. I've inserted topic names into my statements above that we may discuss them more clearly, and set up a potential discussion below: Fiddle Faddle 08:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the path to follow[edit]

My belief is that we should discuss whether to follow the discussion paths labelled above. The two paths are main proposal and alternate proposal. I am setting up two subheadings so we may offer views, views which I hope will lead to a consensus, below: Fiddle Faddle 08:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

main proposal[edit]

Please enter your thoughts about the main proposal including the usual support/oppose/neutral in this section

  • Neutral While the concept of such a discussion is good, such things tend to wither on the vine of lack of enthusiasm. I'm happy to contribute to it if this is the route we choose, but I don't intend to commit to the entire process. Since I believe that others are like me I suspect that, while this appears to be the correct route to full consensus, it will fail. Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I concur with Timtrent, but I also support Penbat's views on the template. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

alternate proposal[edit]

Please enter your thoughts about the alternate proposal including the usual support/oppose/neutral in this section

  • Cautious support on the basis that we are likely, in my view, to achieve the same result as the full discussion route. Uncontroversial edits will be made and will remain made. Controversial ones will work on the Bold, Revert, Discuss principle anyway. In terms of the streamlining of effort to achieve a similar result I prefer this option. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"related" is vague[edit]

I may be speaking out of turn here but for my two cents the problem is the word "related." Perhaps finding some more specific but still appropriate descriptors would help? Like personality/psychological aspects. It might also make sense to treat each entry individually rather than as a group. So maybe do a thumbs up/down on each one then decide how to fit them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltybone (talkcontribs) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculously long and off-topic[edit]

The RFC is a mess, and the template is too long and ridiculously off-topic. This is the version I support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Even SandyGeorgia's version is too long. Try to cut it down to under 2000 bytes to reduce the impact on users with non-Western, non-fast internet connections. These types of templates are a major factor in reducing the accessibility and usability of the project: they make the article harder to open as they can massively bloat article size and load time, they are often of limited relevance, and they're redundant to categories. Risker (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comment from Penbat[edit]

Ive been seriously reluctant to get involved in this discussion but it seems to have gone on for an eternity. To pick on these diffs which seem to be contentious, all articles are relevant to bullying in some way. In some cases references to bullying are actually made in the article. In others the connection is quite apparent if you Google relevant reliable sources its just that the Wikipedia articles need some work to develop the connections. To briefly run through each article:

  • Abuse - bullying is self evidently a form of abuse, it is a social construct. Abuse in particular forms or contexts is deemed bullying.
  • Anger - article mentions bullying "The symptoms of aggressive anger are: Bullying, such as threatening people directly, persecuting, pushing or shoving, using power to oppress, shouting, driving someone off the road, playing on people's weaknesses."
  • Anxiety - chuck this out I think somebody else might have inserted this
  • Control freak - there is no mention of bullying currently in control freak but it is quite self evident that a control freaks mode of operation is often bullying. There are plenty of Google links connecting the two:[1][2][3]
  • Just-world hypothesis - this article has a section on bullying: Just_world_hypothesis#Bullying
  • Narcissism - The workplace bullying article includes a section on narcissism and bullying - see Workplace_bullying#Personality_disorders. The bullying article includes "While some bullies are arrogant and narcissistic....". Plenty of google links on the connection [4][5][6]
  • Personal boundaries - bullying is not explicitly mentioned in this article but it easily could be. Bullying is self evidently the bully expanding their own personal boundaries and violating the personal boundaries of the victim. This idea is mentioned in the article in terms of narcissism
  • Psychopathy The workplace bullying article includes a section on psychopathy and bullying - see Workplace_bullying#Personality_disorders. Also plenty of relevant google links: [7][8][9]
  • Psychological projection - bullying does get a mention in the article "Alternatively, a bully may project his/her own feelings of vulnerability onto their victim...." and there is plenty on Google connecting the two: [10][11][12] Projection is the key psychological mechanism behind bullying.
  • Scapegoating - is clearly a closely related concept to bullying
  • Self-esteem - the self-esteem dynamics of the bully and the target are very pertinent.

--Penbat (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue I have always had is that this is being treated as a list. It is not, it is a navigational template. It should not list every little thing that has some small tie in to the article subject. IMNSHO, a navbox should be limited to where the reader is most likely to want to go next, and that is the most closely related topics. In this case, the "Types" field. The addition of all these tangental links detracts from the template's function as a navigational aid. Even now there remain completely irrelevant links ("moving the goalposts") and numerous links that add very little navigational value. Most all of this is better served in a list article detailing potential effects of bullying. Resolute 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
They're not so tangential, for example psychological projection is fundamental to properly understanding the underlying psychology of bullying. To take your example, moving the goalposts is quite often referenced in the literature as a common bullying tactic and gets covered here: moving_the_goalposts#Bullying --Penbat (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
that section in Moving the Goalposts basically says "this can be an example of bullying because it is". Putting that poor writing aside, it does not change the point that bullying has only a very small relationship with the concept as a whole. It could certainly be included in a list article that can discuss it in context, but in this template, it is simply clutter that distracts from the articles that carry a strong and obvious relationship to the topic. Resolute 00:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No it says more than that. Anyway that isn't the point. As Ive tried to explain, the coverage of bullying on Wikipedia is quite poor. There are tons of sources you can find from Google that could help amplify the relationships between bullying and related concepts but the work remains to be done. Carrying on with your "Moving the goalposts" example: [13][14] --Penbat (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
sigh... Unfortunately, this all revolves around a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the purpose of a navbox. Arguing the existence of some sort of relationship between topics is not going to convince me that every article that fits a broad category of possibilities is appropriate. In a list article, yes. In a navbox, no. C'est la vie though. We'll see how everything shakes out when others have had a chance to participate. Resolute 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Resolute. Less is more, and even this version has too many for my taste, plus, they're poorly done--"yelling" MAYBE has a vague relation to some kinds of bullying (but so does gravity), but it redirects to Shout (sound)--now tell me how "shout" relates to bullying. Next thing you know Tears for Fears is to be added to the infobox Template:Psychological manipulation (a template with a similar set of problems: Trojan horse (business) is legal, not psychological manipulation). Drmies (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A suggested general rule for inclusion in the template...[edit]

Here is one way in which I might subdivide some of these various topics which have been considered here:

  1. Those topics which clearly have a large, marked and significant overlap with the topic of bullying, and therefor probably ought to be included in the bullying template.
  2. Those topics which are perhaps somewhat ambiguous, with some significant overlap, and some significant non-overlap.
  3. Those topics for which most would probably agree there is not enough overlap to warrant their inclusion in the bullying template.

Here is a second way that these topics are also being evaluated:

A. Those topics for which the linking target articles include helpful and relevant supporting article section(s) which act to tie in the given target article in a helpful way.
B. Those topics for which the linking target articles have little or no related material, specifically tying in the target article with the subject of bullying.

Obviously, any topics that qualify for both Item 1., and item A. above should be in the template. Topics that qualify for item 3. above should not.

I would propose that it also makes sense that any items that qualify for item B., should be kept out of the template, at least until the proposed target article could be improved enough to bring such articles up to the A. category.

This leaves only category #2. above as still unresolved. Considering the fact that these templates are supposed to serve as brief navigational aides and not as lengthy lists, I would propose that we generally adopt a policy here that in cases of ambiguity and non-consensus, we should generally try to steer the template more towards the exclusion of such links, rather than towards their inclusion.

Scott P. (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to this proposal. Since the RFC is going to go nowhere fast without a couple more users joining in, I asked others around to gain their perspective. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I basically agree, however it would help to simply lay out which links are to be removed and which are questionable.Saltybone (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to be one of these "others around" and comment. Some preliminary thoughts: 1) I agree that bullying in general is not as well-coverd on WP as it could be (perhaps because there is so much bullying ON WP?) 2) A navbox should be helpful to allow people to easily find related articles on a topic. 3) Just because some articles are not currently all that great is not grounds for exclusion from a navbox if the TOPIC is relevant- it's an argument to improve the articles! 4) The navbox isn't a random link farm; however, it should be as comprehensive as necessary. So, my inclination is to lean toward more, not less, and I don't think the existing navbox is too big. What would help here is a better summation of the 5-6 SPECIFIC articles that appear to be in contention for addition or removal. Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Lets leave the internal Wikipedia political rhetoric out of this, shall we? At any rate, my contention is virtually the entire "Elements" section. Some have obvious links and belong. Most have tenuous links, and while they would be useful to mention in a list article, the majority have so little direct relevance that the only thing we accomplish here is to clutter this template and to clutter those articles with a poorly applied Bullying template. Articles like Shout (sound) don't discuss bullying in any context whatsoever - and that is not a fault of the article. The topic of "bullying" simply isn't relevant to the concept. Teasing, school pranks, sarcasm, rudeness, moving the goalposts, gossip... "Bystanders" is just a duplicate link to the bullying article itself. Defined in context within the bullying article or related? Certainly. Placed in this template? Low value clutter. Resolute 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that is precisely the point, though: what is relevant to bullying? The Elements section is very much key to the whole concept (though if someone wanted to move it loser in the template navbox, I wouldn't object.) The linked articles don't have to say "this is a form of bullying" to be counted, particularly if looking at forms that bullying might take. Now, I agree that duplications or articles that are pretty much circular need to be trimmed, and maybe shouting is a bit of a stretch, but clearly, teasing, taunting, school pranks, practical joking ... all of these things ARE used as tools by bullies. May I suggest collapsible subsections as I did when I created Template:Horse_equipment, which pretty much was stuck with being huge - I it modeled on Template:Scouting, which would be unwieldy otherwise. If you did this style, those who don't care all that much about minutae can just uncollapse the subsections they want. Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. However, I'm still quite pissed off that there was disruption going on between Penbat, Fladrif and Star767 during the events of March-April 2013 and a lot of the stuff here was removed. This only became an issue when Fladrif (a chronically disruptive user who not only had issues with Penbat, but also myself and many other users and was blocked from editing Wikipedia because of his actions) and Star767 (a banned user of Zeraeph) became involved back in March. And that sparked this whole discussion above and the RFC as well. I had no interest in getting involved in the discussion other than asking others around at first right up until after Fladrif was blocked and I saw what happened at WT:BASC (Fladrif was being disruptive there as well). I find his conduct a major distraction. Anyway, I do agree that we should remove duplicate articles or articles that are pretty much circular. As for the collapsible subsections, I can live with that. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • On the basis that reaching any conclusion and consensus on this is unlikely, why not use the current version of the template (however it stands now) as the datum, and see who shouts when an addition or removal is made, using that to reach future consensus? My life is not long enough to spend much more time in this area, and I doubt anyone else's is either. Note, also, that articles and the template need to be kept in step.
And let's ignore Fladrif. I managed to keep him/her civil and on task, and we had productive discussions. Some I won, some I lost. Fiddle Faddle 00:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I was only giving some background information on some events as well, but I did not want to personally participate in the discussions right up until May or so. At this point, I think we still need a new broader consensus from more users on those issues. So far, from the discussions I have seen, there were a couple of limited consensus between some users, but we do not need to maintain ownership of articles or templates. Perhaps it's time to ask other WikiProject members to get involved... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It's always a good time to involve others. So far very few folk seem to care enough either way, so a larger group of folk giving the template some thought would be excellent. But attracting people has been tried before. Perhaps it needs a radically different approach and to be nominated for deletion? I suggest it with all seriousness, but can't find a valid rationale. Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think a radically different approach is acceptable at least. At this point, very few people seem to care about this, but we need a larger group of people to attain consensus. Unless someone objects, I am going to nominate the template for deletion in the next couple of days per Tim's suggestions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm unwatching-- please ping me when you nominate it for deletion. It is patently absurd that we are exposing our readers and our browsers to a template this gynormous. This discussion has been going on for almost a month, and even halfway moves to get it down to something reasonable are opposed. Delete-- pls ping me. Unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • My first question here is, who decides what relevance to the topic of bullying each of these has? Do we try to recruit an expert on the subject? Do we have a straw poll? Who contributes to the straw poll? Do we have a mini-RfC for each? Where is the line drawn? I'm not saying that I object, I just want to make sure that it is clear how this will be handled to decide. Technical 13 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I imagine we rely on consensus. There is a certain irony about that with this topic. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And yet someone has jumped the gun and stripped the template down nearly half... So, let's start discussing this and make all proposed edits to the sandbox version (Template:Bullying/sandbox) instead of the live template itself until we can find some relatively reasonable middle ground about what should go and what should say. Technical 13 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite taking an interest in this template, including setting off the RFC, I've missed this discussion. Template:Ping:Sjones23, I dispute your background statement "And that sparked this whole discussion above and the RFC as well." I was not influenced by banned users to highlight the problems and to call for discussion across the different problematic templates, and in fact I think your summary of the RFC was non-neutral and brought in topics that that the RFC was not about. Anyone who suggests I am a banned user or am acting for a banned user should substantiate the allegations or drop them. I've asked you before what you think my actions have to do with the banned users you mention and have not had a response. If you're annoyed that a lot of material has been removed from the templates, then clearly you're against consensus, looking at the RFC. I think it's unhelpful that, in the RFC and other discussions about these templates, you've spent so much effort talking about the non-issue of long-banned editors in preference to the matter at hand.

@Technical 13:, the discussion that led to the RFC quoted policy that the templates need to follow. We seemed to have consensus there that at least some of the templates were overreaching and need to be cut down. When we have policy and consensus to cut down, and some editors are still opposing cutting down, then I can understand SandyGeorgia's frustration expressed above. As for whether an article is relevant to the template topic, I don't think we need an expert. If the article itself mentions the topic, in way that hasn't obviously been shoe-horned or coat-racked in, then it's likely relevant. That criterion itself fails a lot of links that were included in this template when the concerns were raised. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And part of the result of missing the discussion is that I've missed that there was an RFC on this page in addition to the RFC on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology about this template, so my references to "the RFC" don't match up with what other contributors are referring to. Not sure why there had to be another RFC: on the surface, it looks like forum-shopping. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really think it was forum shopping. But I think there was actually a weak consensus on this issue among Psychology members among some editors and this discussion was going on for too long. That's why I decided to take an RFC here, but in the end it's just a total mess. My summary was clearly trying to be neutral. The above discussion back in April contained, in my view, a very weak consensus, but after all, there is consensus against restoring the links referred to below. We can always change consensus at a much later time, but in the meantime, I think that everyone should let this template and the other templates pertaining to psychology take their chances in due course. Until then, let's all move on to something that's actually important. The end. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what "let this template and the other templates [...] take their chances in due course" means. I would just like this template, and the other templates where I've identified similar problems, to respect policy and the (weak) consensus of two successive RFCs (plus the consensus of past discussion before the RFCs). I'd like discussion towards this end not to be persistently derailed by reference to the long-banned users. It's ironic that you say this is not important when you've spent so much time and effort on it, and you've described yourself as "quite pissed off". MartinPoulter (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you do know what it means, you know. The hurly burly of Wikipedia means that aspects which do not meet policy will, now or later, be made compliant by someone, maybe by you. I don't care about long banned users, not about yet to be banned users, nor about unbanned users. I do care about policy, compliance, and so much else besides. I do not care about harking back to the Cold War and debating the shape of the conference table over this. Life is too short. I may or may not be outa here. I may come back if I have gone. I may not. Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Links to keep or delete[edit]

Since the RFC has been closed, I would like to make a proposal here on which links to keep or leave out. If someone objects, I am going to start a proposal for the categories that were removed back in April. Comments or objections before I proceed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

lack of topic[edit]

see a lot of topic , but lack the treatment method for people after been bully, psychotherapy, counseling etc... anyone get a idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Composcompos12 (talkcontribs) 14:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Links to small sections of already listed articles[edit]

[15] In this edit I deleted some entries that simply go to subsections of already listed articles. I don't see any reason to have multiple links to a single article. If the concepts listed are notable and important than let's write articles about them. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Same for redirects. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)