Talk:Mobbing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2018 and 2 May 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcola002, Jdelo012. Peer reviewers: Kimperry, Mgrantyoung.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

old comment75.170.145.237 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)s
Took out the link to the word "receptionist," since it didn't seem to be contributing much to the discussion.

Here, I would like to discuss with you

I linked from Tom Juravich to here because he has a book coming out called Bread WithOUT Roses that I think deals at least in part with mobbing in the US.

RudolfRadna 28 December 2005

Dr Leymann first discovered Mobbing in the school systems, and then later than it transcended that environment. This point is too often overlooked, as these are children that are being mobbed and this seems to where it starts. Dr. Leymann also may have coined the context, but the term was actually borrowed due its accuracy in describing the group psychology involved.

Mobbing v Workplace Bullying
Confusingly Leymann referred to any workplace bullying as mobbing. This use of the word mobbing is still in common use today in the US and Canada. This useage is not explained properly here.--Penbat 10:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made an effort but the whole article is still a bit muddled. I will revisit once i work out how to straighten it out.--Penbat 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be an option to have information on the origin of the term mobbing. The term mobbing was used in Sweden and translated back to English as Workplace Bullying because the term mobbing was considered cumbersome. --Sampi/€ 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be that the false friend (coined by an Austrian and a German/Swede) has come back to English. E.g. the cited book Mobbing. Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace also defines mobbing as any kind of workplace harassment, be it by a "mob", a superior or a single coworker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.57.16 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Well, it was far worse than that...almost the entire article seems to be opinion, conjecture and hyperbole. Think this article needs CPR at present. Still there were a couple of links that seem good if you get to the relevant pages. More work later --Zeraeph 12:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Eliminate foreign language links at Wikipedia?
I think we need to be cognizant that English is the universal language, and that many persons from other countries are multi-lingual, and more and more likely to have English as their primary second language. We must pause to reflect that many of our Wiki editors here have a native language other than English. We can only expect that "foreigners" will make themselves welcome here. Not every country or language has its own full-fledged Wikipedia.

It is presuming to decide for Wikipedia readers as to whether or not they should be able to find resources in their own countries or in other languages in which they are fluent. If this is against policy, please link the Wiki page that details that all foreign language links must be removed. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean-Up Work
I can't speak for the foreign language ones, but the other links deleted certainly needed to go. There are far better legitimate ones that can replace them if needed. However, the Leyman link is relatively weak. And I noted that first you added citations, but then later decided than encouraging improvements, that you ended up deleting them all. There is nothing there at all but totally fringe topics. I know they may have been poor, but it seems they might have been kept - even if brought over here. But I realize it is difficult when you haven't an college education in psychology to understand what you're reading. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I REALLY think that all foreign versions of "page not found" should be removed, which is pretty much all I did (I made that clear in the edit summary too). Apart from that I switched entries from foreign language "gateway" pages to far more relevant links within the sites that were in English. I think there was one German language only site that I was assured by a native German was non-notable anyway...perhaps you should read WP:EL on this one?


 * Incidentally, I know the Leymann link is weak myself (and HOW) but it turns out to be a special case. It is actually Leymann's own site, in his own broken English, still live several year after his death, and as such is quite unique. --Zeraeph 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I Thought the Troll Was Gone
Thought it was safe to try to contribute to this article again. Obviously not. This article has been destroyed. What a waste of everyones time. I suppose it's only fitting that a bully would target this article. Radyx 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Section requiring cleanup
I write this article frustrated. While in my line of work and research, I have witnessed some accounts of mobbing on good individuals, many times woman. All of them were innocent fof the wrongdoing the mobbers perceived. Some of the mobbers were Christian, drug attics, mentally challenged, or violent. I write this artice hoping to wake up people in denial about mobbers and their violent and insane motives.

Some of the reactions that victims could have toward mobbers and groups of mobbers are listed below: 1. A single victim, skilled in guns and martial arts, could take out an M-16 on a crowd of mobbers. I've heard this spoken about amongst some drug dealers I heard when I was working in a drug rehab clinic. Also, such a type of situation has already happened in an affluent community where people regularly single out people from other areas who are not rich and like them. Unfortunately, they picked one individual from a low income community to mob, and this individual was attempting to start a new job in a affluent community where his new job was at. He was mobbed, then took an M-16 or some assault rifle, and he killed several people who he knew to be spreading bad rumors about him, which these rumors were destroying a good job he really needed to support his wife and kid AND - the rumors were wrong. The mobbers just didn't like his low income status.

Many gifted, talented, and intelligent people will be discriminated against by narrow minded individuals who think they look 'weird' or 'are bad because they look different', or they are 'single and stalking their children'. Many times, when townspeople think these types of things about certain individual's, they are wrong. As they mob and annoy the individual, the person could really be a local brain surgeon or higher up of some type, or a clergy member. Mobbers are paranoid, frightened, inferiors.

2. A group of mobbers could mob the wrong person such as, a Mafia member, an unstable FBI Agent,a gang member, a serial killer, or a psychotic individual with guns. Such a person could also kill -on the spot - ignorant mobbers. So, if mobbers think they are going to have fun mobbing someone, maybe not.

There are many ways some violent or completely enraged victims may get back at their mobbers such as,

1. Filtering a lethal gas into their homes and cars, burning down their homes, or blowing up their cars. 2. Mobbing back with a much more larger or more seriously deranged group of people who will bypass law enforcment and stop mobbers themselves. 2. Being passive aggressive back such as, secretly destroying mobbers jobs, homes, and lives behind the mobbers backs who will not even know whose doing it. 3. Worst of all: A single, deranged person, or group of people, could take out an m-16, 9MM, or assault rifle on mobbers.

Mobbers should stop their mobbing, because many of times, they are

1. Wrong about the person they are mobbing, and often, its done because they are imagining the victim has done something wrong, or they have an immature jealousy/hatred problem that's gone completely out of control, and probably requires medical attention. There are drugs for such borderline individuals that will stalk and mob those they feel inferior to or are paranoid of.

For example, one ignorant fellow on my block thought someonen was an FBI Agent because they appeared to be an FBI Agent, and gathering all his bully crew against the person, the person was murdered. It was found out later, that the person was just a Janitor who dressed well.

2. Mobbers are members of hate groups who think they are going to resolve a situation of those they think should be hated, but all they do is put themselves in danger, and eventually are mobbed in return.

What I think personally should be done to mobbers: Mobbers need to get psychiatric treatment before they are physically harmed, or harm someone else, as a result of their twisted control issues. Analyzing the behavior and motives of mobbers, I'd say they are a danger to themselves and others. This being said, mobbers should be evaluated and treated for their various OCD and Psychotic problems. They have too serious of hate and ideation issues [paranoid ideation, psychotic encumbrances, etc.] going on and need help. Many mobbers become mobbers, because they have associated with individuals who will agree with them on their hate issues and psychotic ideas. Thus such an disturbed association of friends, will become a mob. Mobbers need to consider the serious consequences of their mobbing, especially when there is now equipment to track them down should they set up surveillance equipment and make rude phone calls to their, often innocent, victims.

For hate mongerers:

It's not the person who looks weird walking down the street, or the one who is of a race you think is bad, or the woman who didn't want you, who should be mobbed or destroyed, it's you, and many people are now aware of mobbers and their tricks, and many intelligent people just won't put up with it. Mobbers are considered to be a group of violent mentally ill offenders in my line of work. It doesn't matter what the mobbers reasons are. For example, here's another situation I encountered of a professional woman, unmarried, but extremely moral. Not a sleep around, druggie, or bad person, but Christians thought she had sinned when she stopped going to church to attend her career. She was mobbed, nearly had a nervous breakdown, and had to leave the small community she had lived in. I have seen this happen repeatedly. A good looking, career woman goes to church, donates to the charities, and is not even a whore or drug attic of any kind, in some small, ignorant minded community. So, this poor single woman stopped the church because of the irrational expectations of the ministry, which were not goals she had planned for herself such as marriage, pregnancy, but I guess the ministry thought she should stop her current goals and get married and pregnant. So, she stopped attending such a narrow minded congregation. But, here she was, the same good person,moral, and intelligent, and helping many indigent people in the counties clinics. And, the irrational Christians started mobbing her. They began telling lies about her in the community after realizing she was not going to marry any of the men at the church [she had been receiving pressure to get pregnant since the Christians thought this was her duty in life, and I won't go on, but it does get sicker]. telling the bad people in the neighborhood that she was making narc reports on them, which she wasn't, standing outside her home waiting for her to come out, annoying her with noise at all hours around her home, staring at her, stalking her to her mailbox, and all sorts of disturbances from people the Christians had pit on her. Basically, the mobbing Christians were stopped by law enforcement. They got nowhere with their mobbing. As they mobbed, law enforcement and other people in higher law enforcement agencies were put on notice. So, as the mobbers thought she was making narc reports, sinning, and doing bad things to them, I guess after the mobbers got on her case for such false allegations, then she did make police reports on them. So, mobbers are ignorant, unstable, and inferior individuals who can either improve themselves or put themselves away if they are so disturbed by others who are better than them.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
made these changes to Mobbing -- adding a list of film works, some rewording, and updating some sources -- but they were reverted as vandalism. The changes may be not be appropriate for the article but I think they are clearly not vandalism. Would someone who follows this article more closely comment? Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Penbat started adding a "See Also: Mobbing" section to a large number of films in a very short amount of time with no edit summaries or explanation (that I could see, anyway). Under the circumstances it appeared to be possible vandalism. Penbat already filed an adminhelp request, the results of which can be seen on their talk page. They also wrote me a couple of temperamental notes, but that's neither here nor there. While editing the article and perhaps creating a Mobbing category might be worthwhile endeavors, IMO adding it as a See Also to dozens of film articles is not a good approach...or at least should be discussed before being implemented. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, so let's discuss it :-) I can see why you reacted strongly.  That kind of behavior would probably trip some of my red flags too.  Do you feel like adding the films to a "Mobbing-related films" category or some such would be more appropriate? Tim Pierce (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd never even heard of Mobbing until it spontaneously showed up on a bunch of film articles I was monitoring; hence I'm not sure I'm really qualified to comment on the subject. I would say that a Mobbing category would definitely be more appropriate than a See Also (IMO SA's should contain links more directly related to the primary thrust of the film). That being said, I'm not sure that this category would be a significant benefit to the film articles. I'm also not sure that the films that were previously edited are ones where mobbing plays a significant role. It might be worth asking some of the folks involved with the Films project what they think since it's "their" articles that would be impacted by this broad change. Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue is discussed in detail at User_talk:Penbat. Yes i wrongly omitted using edit summaries but it is extremely unhelpful to play the "vandalism" card in this situation. IMO it is a very useful synergy to give a film list that feature mobbing as it illustrates examples of mobbing in an otherwise fairly dry mobbing article. From the perspective of the individual film articles, I put in "See alsos" to mobbing and it is very useful for the reader of that film article to know that an important theme in the film is a widely recognised sociological phenomina. As for the point that the the list of films being too long, it is hardly sufficient reason to delete the list and it would distort the author's intentions if it were truncated.--Penbat (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's overreacting to refer to the issuing of one low-level vandalism warning and the rollback of related edits as "playing the vandalism card", especially given the level of reaction you undertook (simultaneous notes on my Talk page, adminhelp, WP:AN). As it stands now I don't feel that you and I are in a position to discuss the situation objectively. I will wait to hear from other editors regarding what they feel is the best approach to improving this article and pertinent film articles. Doniago (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly i feel that it was grossly inappropriate for you to consider my work as "vandalism" - for a start i deleted nothing and instead added constructive material - unlike yourself who has made unwarranted wholesale deletions relating to the subject of mobbing - a subject which you admit you know nothing about, while on the other hand I am a relative expert on the subject. I found the accusation of "vandalism" to be offensive. The case can be much more easily made that your deletions were vandalism not my original edits. I think almost anybody in my position would have responded with the consternation that I had. You dont seem to have expressed any guilt or remorse that you have wasted the time of several good intentioned people. --Penbat (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My two (independent) cents:
 * This was a clear mistake with good faith on both sides, hopefully you can easily work together now it's cleared up.
 * Not convinced a category is good, just because if Category:Films involving mobbing was created it would effectively either mimic a fixed sourced list or be WP:OR or contentious, also because of the floodgates it opens (Category:Films involving sunlight? Category:Films involving psychosis?)
 * 4 options for that list:
 * External link or external reference material ("A list of films can be found in...")
 * Same but a section that starts "Films showing mobbing include (2 - 3 examples), further examples can be found in (source/external reference)"
 * List article List of films related to mobbing or the like)
 * Ignore or exclude it (articles don't include everything that could be said on a topic and a full list of films showing the topic may be too much?)

FT2 (Talk 18:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about the potential OR implications of a category (I don't deal with cats that much myself); that makes sense. Any of those four options sounds reasonable to me. I think if individual films are going to be listed efforts should be made to ensure that they not only depict mobbing but do so in a notable (i.e. sourced) manner. Doniago (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, we already have Category:Drug-related films, Category:LGBT-related films, Category:Medical-themed films, Category:Firefighting films and many more. That said, "mobbing" is clearly a much more narrow subject than most of these, and most of the categories in Category:Films by topic are "films about" and not "films involving".  I don't see how using a category rather than a list would invoke WP:OR, though. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO this discussion is completely going off the rails. The category idea is a complete red herring. Kenneth Westhues just wanted to give an example list of films that represented mobbing in different ways. The cited reference explains his understanding of why each film represents mobbing. In many cases there have been several versions of a film made and Westhues just selected one. There is no way a Category:Films involving mobbing  category is  viable. This is a complete waste of everybodies time and i see no reason why all of Doniagos's deletions shouldnt be restored including the "see alsos" from each individual film article referred to by Westhues.--Penbat (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Penbat, please have patience. This discussion is barely a day old. You must allow a little time for it to go forward. Please revert your changes so that we can finish the discussion here. I'm confident that we can come to an agreement that's okay with everyone. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Penbat has been active since this notice was posted and unilaterally reverted their changes without apparent regard for this discussion (or me), I am asking that an editor less directly involved in the dispute revert the controversial changes, at least until such time as a consensus can be reached on the best way to move forward. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The list section that provides no context other than "Dr. So-and-so says these films have a portrayal of my definition of 'mobbing'" is not encyclopedic. Active Banana (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To Active Banana
Active Banana you are completely missing the point. I recently successfully got List of books on bullying deleted see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_books_on_bullying in the same way as List of fictional bullies and i considered it to be POV and OR. Unless any such list is put together by a recognized authority, such a list is bound to be POV and OR.

My "mobbing in films" list is far superior to things like Category:Films about dysfunctional families to which any uninformed editor can add to the list and is bound to end up completely POV and OR. Not only is Kenneth Westhues probably the world's leading expert on mobbing, he must the best possible placed person to compile such a list and he developed it over a long period of time. In addition, in the link given, Westhues specifically explains how each individual film illustrates mobbing. The example films given would be very useful to a lay reader of the mobbing article to give examples of mobbing in an otherwise generally fairly dry article. In fact it creates an excellent synergy on both directions to and from individual film articles. --Penbat (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed my concern at all. What is the encyclopedic content of "Dr. X says these films have representations of my definition of 'mobbing'" ? I see nothing appropriate for a full section in THIS article. So what if other things might be WORSE, this still is not worthy. Active Banana (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am growing more and more doubtful that there is any place for this material in the encyclopedia. The article already links to Kenneth Westhues, from which people can click directly to his article on "Film Depictions of Ganging Up."  I'm not seeing a lot of third-party coverage of this "mobbing in films" theory that would justify transcribing this material directly into Wikipedia. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The following was moved here from article- Is this more than one guy's opinion?
I moved the following section from the article space as it appears to be merely one guys opinions. Is there any evidence that this is a widespread definition used by anyone other that Westhues? Active Banana (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Kenneth Westhues is not just any "one guy". He is a professor in sociology and probably the worlds leading guru on mobbing (kinda equivalent to Hare being the worlds leading guru on psychopathy). Westhues didnt invent the study of mobbing, he just built on the original work by Heinz Leymann in particular. Westhues's research is in no way fringe. Westhues has plenty of entries on Google scholar and is frequently cited by others. --Penbat (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to include this checklist, my feeling is that there should be some indication of how this list is useful, ideally reliable sources documenting its usage. Otherwise I'm not sure how the list is notable and it may be giving undue weight to Westhues over other researchers. Doniago (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It also seems redundant to include this list both here and in the article on Westhues and also somewhat alarming that in neither instance is there anything explaining the significance of the list beyond "This is a list that Westhues made up." Is there any indication that other parties have reviewed this list on a critical level? Doniago (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you claim he is a "top guru". Provide third party evidence that this list is anything other than what he gets his celebrity speaker fees for. Is it used by police forces to identify crimes? Is it used by insurance companies to identify qualified victims for reimbursment of therepy costs? Do recognized experts utilize this or does it just sit in his book? Content in articles requires evidence not just editors claims. Active Banana (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest guys Westhues work is often referenced including his mobbing list:

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:vuUcbygsEgAJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=TVr&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Checklist+of+Mobbing+Indicators%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Juding by the links provided, I would agree that the list is notable enough for inclusion. Ω pho  is  19:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While appears in google scholar, it appears to be simply some sort of staff training guide for one school and not any type of peer reviewed study. So we have primary evidence that in addition to Westhues himself, 1 school talked about his list. Not really encyclopedic. And the fact that something has google hits  is not in itself encyclopedic content. And for all we know, the sites are saying what a joke Westhues list is, not that we would be able to include that because from a quick scan, most of the hits are from non reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can any reliable source citations be provided indicating that other people in Westhues' field have reviewed this list? If not then, while it may be appropriate for an article on Westhues himself, it doesn't seem appropriate for this article, and I will reiterate my concern that even if it is technically appropriate for this article the inclusion of the list may still constitute undue weight.
 * On a side-note, I will point out that Penbat's comments relating to this issue are making it very difficult to assume good faith, as Penbat doesn't appear inclined to make said assumption themselves. Among other things they've indicated a desire to have me banned. I would hope that discussion of this issue could be handled in a professional, civil manner. Doniago (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Westhues's checklist of mobbing indicators
Sociologist Kenneth Westhues devised the following list of mobbing indicators, with indicator number 12 probably being the most important:
 * 1) By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
 * 2) Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”
 * 3) The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
 * 4) Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is”.
 * 5) Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson”.
 * 6) Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.
 * 7) Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
 * 8) Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
 * 9) High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
 * 10) Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for” or defend the target.
 * 11) The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
 * 12) The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
 * 13) Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
 * 14) Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
 * 15) Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
 * 16) Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both.


 * Reflist for 'Westhues's checklist of mobbing indicators' 

Quit reinserting the list into the article. You have not provided sufficient support to meet the challenges rasied. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC) to add local Reflist & 'group' param so reflist appears here, instead of confusingly at page bottom. Notify

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

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

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

Edit request on 17 October 2012
It would be good if this article had a section on "mobbing on the internet". However, I don't know enough about it and therefore I cannot write it. Lova Falk    talk   12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is already an entire article on Cyberbullying. If the Mobbing article were many times longer than it is now, I could see possibly having a short subsection about Cyberbullying of a couple of sentences, preceded by a Main template pointing to the Cyberbullying article.  However, as this article is quite short, and is pretty much restricted to Workplace bullying, or possibly including schoolyard bullying but in any case, "live" or in-person bullying exclusively, the concept of internet bullying seems related but off-topic, hence belongs most properly in the See also section, where it already is.  I don't think anything further needs to be done here about cyberbullying. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed section
The following material has long been unreferenced and is either WP:OR or can be returned to the article once you have provided a suitable citation for it:

"==Etymology==

Though the English word mob denotes a crowd, often in a destructive or hostile mood, German, Spanish, Polish, Italian and several other European languages have adopted mobbing as a loanword to describe all forms of bullying including that by single persons. The resultant German verb mobben can also be used for physical attacks, calumny against teachers on the internet and intimidation by superiors, with an emphasis on the victims' continuous fear rather than the perpetrators' will to exclude them. The word may thus be a false friend in translation back into English, where mobbing in its primary sense denotes a disorderly gathering by a crowd and in workplace psychology narrowly refers to "ganging up" by others to harass and intimidate an individual."

Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it can be left in the article as an invisible comment to editors? Unfortunately, while it's unreferenced, it's accurate. Even more unfortunately, without it many editors (I suspect non-native speakers) will add info to the page claiming that 'mob' in English means to bully someone. That used to constantly get added before this section appeared.Malick78 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not terribly wonderful leaving unsourced invisible text in articles... could I guess leave a comment in there pointing at this (not ideal either). The right answer is to find decent sources, but you knew that already. And to be honest I can't really see why the whole article isn't merged to Bullying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Mobbing' clearly has some other meanings different from bullying. Malick78 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, maybe this could just be put into the bullying article. I withdraw my objection.Malick78 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Lede needs work. Mobbing as pseudo-anglicism from the German
I have a quarrel with the lead sentence, where the definition given here of Mobbing goes against the common meaning of the word as generally used in English, and as supported by most monolingual English dictionaries. There is a recent, secondary meaning of Mobbing, which is the one the lede gives and which dates, imho, to a publication in the 1980s or 90s, where a pseudo-anglicism was coined for a journal article written in English by a non-native speaker, and based on a False friend loanword as used in German.

The lead sentence says: "Mobbing in the context of human beings means bullying of an individual by a group in any context, such as a family, friends, peers, school, workplace, neighborhood, community, or online."

This is incorrect in common English parlance. It's the part in the context of human beings which makes it wrong. If this qualifier were replaced by among certain academics in social science or psychology, especially European academics publishing in English, then it would be more correct. (In fact, the Euro-academics have influenced the language to the point where native English speaking academics have adopted it as well.)

was absolutely right above about the sense of Mobbing = bullying as stemming from reimportation of a False Friend loanword from English into European languages. The Merge proposal was withdrawn, but this reflects usage of the term by academics in a way that is non-standard for the simple verb 'to mob' in English. You can check any number of English dictionaries to find what it means; none of the four I checked included this meaning (Webster's 2nd Int'l Unabridged p. 1575, New Oxford American Dict, p 1075, Am. Heritage, New College Ed., p. 842, Websters 9th New Collegiate, p. 762). Typical definition/example (from NOAD): "crowd around someone in an unruly and excitable way in order to admire or attack them: he was mobbed by autograph hunters. crowd into: (a building or place): an unruly crowd mobbed the White House during an inaugural reception."

That is the principal definition of to mob, with none of the four sources I checked including to bully as a synonym or even as a word used in any part of the definition. (Most included the ornithological sense.)

Chiswick Chap's comment (and 87.162.57.16's) about reimportation of a False friend into English is spot on, and it's perhaps hard to recognize if you're monolingual and have not lived in a non-English speaking West European country where the meaning of mobbing and many other English loanwords is different than in English. Sometimes you'll hear a pretty good English speaker in Paris ask, "How much is the on that flat?" or "Can I borrow your ?" in Berlin, and if you speak French and German you know exactly what they mean, because you're familiar with the False Friend upon which the foreign speaker relied, thinking of it incorrectly as an English word and assuming it has the same meaning in English, which it doesn't.

Mobbing started out exactly like that, and even now means, simply, bullying, in some countries, but not in the U.S. and AFAIK, not in the U.K. (correct me if I'm wrong) among the general public. (Among academics, it's a different story, as noted.)

Look at what Leo, my fave German-Engish online dictionary has this to say about mobbing: bullying, bullying at work, harassment at work, workplace bullying, cyberbullying. It does not give English mobbing as a translation for German mobbing.

The Leo forums give a great insight into the term's likely origin from German, and also into the confusion among German speakers who know some English, about whether mobbing in English means what it does in German, or not: please check out the Leo forum references under Can someone explain the word mobbing? where one forum poster (10 Jun 10, 08:54) nails it: "In this sense [i.e., workplace harrassment/bullying] it's mostly a pseudo-Anglicism, though it occasionally now shows up in English in international contexts, taken from the German." See also the forums mobbing - das mobbing and mobbing=mobbing where the latter quotes Leymann 1996 using mobbing in the bullying sense.

Now, having said all that, it's clear that some academics have begun to use mobbing in the Euro-English sense, which is not surprising, as they originally were making the same mistake as in the examples above. The difference is, even if these are non-native speakers, as academics, they publish, and usually they publish in English, and other academics cite and follow their articles, and publish further. The original "mistakes", if you want to call them that, become sufficiently cited and used by other academics, and then, since we are all descriptivists and not prescripitivists at some point the mass of citations in respected academic publications in English takes on some weight, and this new sense of mobbing, even though not originating in an English speaking country, is added to the English dictionary.

And that's where we are now. Because I'm also a descriptivist I wouldn't object to the new sense of mobbing as bullying, because there are now sufficient verifiable citations from reliable sources; it still grates on me, but I accept I've lost that battle.

However--it's still not true that that is the principal meaning of mobbing, it's clearly secondary; hence my objection to the lead sentence.

Most of the four sources I gave go on to explain the early, specialized sense of mobbing in birds and animals. Heinz Leymann, cited in the article, is Swedish/German, and I initially suspected him of being the one who made the original False Friend reimportation mistake. He still may have been, but it's interesting that the article on him says that even he preferred the term bullying in the context of school children.

An etymology section here would be highly pertinent, to establish whether or not this theory of False Friend reimportation by Euro-English speaking academics is correct or not, and whether it can be laid at the feet of Leymann or someone else. On one thing I'd stake my paycheck: the first flurry of academic papers in English about this topic by sociologists or psychologists to use the term in connection with children must have been not written by native English speakers, and were probably German or French. Let me know if I win my bet. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Duffy & Sperry (2012) have more on the definitions of mobbing and bullying, in fact, a whole chapter. Here is a brief excerpt from chapter 3:

"A number of terms are used to describe workplace abuse, and their is little consensus among researchers about which term is the most descriptive and useful. The debate in the literature centers largely around the use of the terms "bullying" and "mobbing" and whether they are different or essentially synonymous (Bultena & Whatcott, 2008; Davenport, Schartx, & Elliott, 1999; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2003b; Namie & Namie, 2000, 2009a; Westhues, 2005a, b)."


 * She goes on to cite other terms in use, such as workplace harrassment, workplace aggression, emotional abuse in the workplace, workplace incivility, and abusive supervision. She also concludes that in cases where children are involved, there is a consensus among most researchers for the use of "bullying", but then goes on to question that, asking whether "mobbing" wouldn't be the better term in that case as well.  She explains more about the frustration faced by researchers by the multiplicity of terms, and then discusses the geographic distribution of favorite terms, with "bullying" favored in UK, Australia, Ireland, and northern Europe, whereas "mobbing" is favored in Scandinavia, Germany, and German-speaking countries, while in North America, the preference is for the more generalized terms like "workplace xyz" as noted. above.  The chapter deals a lot more with these definitions, and on page 40 she adds, Leymann's 1990 definition of mobbing became the basis for most of the definitions of either term (bullying or mobbing) in use by others since then.


 * Reflist for Lede needs work 


 * You can use SITB on Amazon to find these quotes, and GG books should work, too. Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Notify:
 * Edited to add Reply-to above by Mathglot (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, what a mess the world out there is in. The best we can do here at Wikipedia is to reflect that by doing what Mathglot appears to be doing, describing what is there as clearly as possible from the available sources. If that means updating the lead, so be it. (And no, I don't fancy working on it: this is a one-off comment now.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , Agreed, and thanks for your comment. I've worked on some articles where if you change a comma, it's either reverted immediately or they jump down your throat on the Talk page.  So, I was probably being overly careful.  I'll probably go ahead and make some changes. Among other things, there should probably be a definition section that talks about just these issues that are mentioned here.  For now, I'll start off with a disputed tag, to draw attention to the discussion here.


 * Still looking for more feedback, in case y'all other contributors stop by here. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Further info on the coinage, definition and description of the word: Leymann claims coinage of the word mobbing (in the workplace sense) in the 1980s on his website (now maintained, or at least preserved, after his death at www.leymann.se). Reading through his website, native speakers will note his advanced level of English, which nevertheless has numerous minor errors of the type that non-native speakers often make without prejudicing understanding, and exactly the level at which I'd expect someone to feel their competence in English was good enough to choose a word in English for a concept they're writing about, and to still end up getting it wrong.  So I think it's quite clear now, at least to me, that the unfortunate choice of mobbing for the concept is Leymann's, and also that we're pretty much stuck with it now, at least in Euro-English, and in some cases in academia even in English speaking countries, although not with the general public.  For more on coinage and definition, see his description at Information about Psychoterror in The Work place and definition at The Definition of Mobbing at Workplaces. Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, I´m sorry to say you are incorrect when you write that the choice of "mobbing" for the concept is Leymann´s. First of all Leymann states that he takes the concept from Lorenz´s book "On Aggression" which looks at such social group bullying as highlighted by Leymann. In fact the term "Mobbing" goes further than Lorenz in that it has existed for many years in animal behaviour (see wiki article here). In Lorenz´s book he points out the similarities with animal and human behaviour in mobbing and he gives examples of this (see here Lorenz´s book). In relation to Euro-English, as far as I am aware this is not recognised as an official form of English but rather an idea set about by various non-native English speaking academics who argue that since there are more non-native speakers of English, then they should decide what is the authenic English form. One thing to say about that, good luck with that because I can´t see Euro-English ever becoming an official form of English over all other forms spoken natively within the European Union. I mean what would be next perhaps Euro-German, Euro-French, Euro-Spanish, or perhaps Euro-Swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:1433:18C1:12AE:2832 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also Leymann made erroneous claims in his article (see here) such as on page 167 where he writes "Mobbing is a word not previously used in this context of the English language. It was used by the late Konrad Lorenz, an ethologist, in Describing animal group behaviour". Later he goes on to argue he used the term "Mobbing" instead of the term "Bullying" because "the connotation of bullying is physical aggression and threat" (Page 167). However, first the connotation of both the terms of "Mobbing" and "Bullying" in the English language can be equally viewed as psychological aggression just as much as physical aggression since to threaten someone does not necessarily imply physical assault. Secondly when mobbing is applied, it is often used to describe the actions of groups, such as:


 * in The history of Ulster from the earliest times to the present day, Volume 4" by Ramsay Collies (1919-1920), on pages 30 & 31, it is written

“Schomberg agreed (on 27th August), after a few days and the loss of about 150 men on each side, to permit the garrison to march out with arms and baggage, on condition that they marched under escort to the nearest Jacobite garrison. But these terms were considered by the people of the town and neighbourhood as far too indulgent. They had suffered much in many ways at the hands of the Jacobite troops, and, now assembling in great crowds, they declared that the terms of surrender had not been made with them, and proceeded to prove their words by mobbing the men who had heaped insults upon them. The garrison, perturbed and perplexed by this hostility on the part of the people, for which they were quite unprepared, were easily disarmed, hustled, and stripped, and naturally looked to Schomberg for protection.”


 * A second example may be seen in "The Irish orators; a history of Ireland's fight for freedom" by Claude Gerade Bowers (1916) on pages 461 and 462 and where it is written:

“The inevitable thing under such governmental conditions — the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus — coercion, a governmental reign of terror, a reversion to first principles. The fight of Parnell now shifted back to Westminster, where he made one of the most remarkable and picturesque fights against the Forster Coercion bill that has ever been witnessed in the English parliament. With marvellous dexterity, untiring, determined, he interposed between the government and the passage of the bill every parliamentary device known to man. Every possible scheme of obstruction was brought into play. The Irish party slept upon their arms — rather, they slept not at all. At length, worn to a frazzle, desperate in its impotency, the government, finding itself unable to defeat the little straggling army of Parnell through recognized parliamentary methods, put an end to the struggle after eleven days by mobbing the parliament. Force in Ireland — force in parliament — why not ? The Coercion bill was passed and the lord lieutenant was authorized to arrest any persons he reasonably suspected and, without trial, to throw them into prison and hold them there for any period up to September thirtieth, 1882. This was in the England of the latter days of the nineteenth century!”


 * A third example where mobbing is used in the English language in both a physical and psychological fashion is in "The Irish Revolution and how it came about" by William O´Brien (1923) on pages 346 and 347 where it is written:

“The explanation of the amorphous condition of the Convention was only too simple. A Partition Agreement could have been at any moment struck up by an overwhelming majority if the Hibernians could have plucked up courage to hark back to their Party's surrender of the Six Counties more than a year before. But the mobbing of Mr. Redmond outside Trinity College on the opening day, and the mobbing of Mr. Redmond and Mr. Devlin again in Cork (which was the only notice the young men deigned to take of their proceedings) above all the recollection of the message of doom from East Clare, kept alive by the hints the unrepresentative majority were receiving every day of their lives of the indignation and contempt of their constituents completely daunted the mass of the County Councillors and Town Councillors from following their Parliamentary leaders an inch further on the road to Partition.”

All these examples predate Leymann´s application of the word in the English language, and all these articles relate to psychological and physical aggression. There are many other examples I could apply, however, if you are still not convinced, and you prefer dictionary enteries. In the Oxford Dictionary 2006 edition it states; Mob noun 1 a disorderly crowd of people. 2 Brit informal a group of people. 3 (the mob) N. Amer. the mafia. 4 (the mob) derogatory the oridinary people. verb (Mobs, Mobbing, Mobbed) crowd round someone or into somewhere in an unruly way - ORIGIN from Latin Mobile Vulgus "excitable crowd"


 * I hope this shows that mobbing is a group activity and that the lede is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:8D7:F6A7:9B15:5885 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

American or British English?
The article is currently written in a mish-mash of British and American English. The history of the article shows that the original started off in AE, and by the end of day two it was already a mix of the two. It's probably more AE than BE at this point.

WP Guidelines about style and consistency strongly suggest that articles should pick one variety of English, and stick to it, unless there are strong ties to a particular country.

I don't have a strong opinion about which one it should be. I believe that at one time, there may have been a slight argument in favor of British English as this whole concept of mobbing arose from professional non-native European speakers writing in British English for publication, as ESL as taught in Europe tends to favor (favour?) British English. But the term has since crossed the Atlantic, with some American professionals (though not the general public) have begun to adopt the term in academic publications, and in any case, the concept itself has no country. For that reason, I don't think MOS:TIES applies here (as it would for Chicago fire or Tower of London for example), so it's kind of a toss-up. If there's a trend of support for one or the other, I'd just go with the majority. Maybe it should just depend on a count of how many changes would have to be made, how many "behaviour" words to change to AE, or how many AE "&lt;some verb>-ized" to BE "-ise".

Once a decision is made, the top of the article page should contain the template Use British English or Use American English, and we should add British English to the top of this Talk page if BE is the choice (I'm not sure if there is an equivalent banner for AE or not). Opinions needed, please discuss. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is a new buzzword the default article????
I get that someone somewhere has identified this as a thing and they’ve published books, but making this the main article seems utterly crazy to me. The general sense of “being crowded by” (not necessary in a negative sense either!) or the animal behaviour term are the ones that most people I know would think of first. I had never heard of the workplace harassment sense until yesterday and I’ve been a native speaker of English for nearly 53 years. Wikipedia is being driven off-course here by a linguistic fad. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To understand your logic could you please explain what you would call this more complex form of group bullying?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right in that this is not the primary meaning of "mobbing" in standard English. But it's not a fad, it's Euro-English invented by a single individual who speaks English well enough to write academic articles, but not well enough to understand the meaning of the word as native speakers know and understand it.  The term then got picked up by other academics, including native speakers, and is now used narrowly in academia as a type of jargon to refer to a very specific kind of group bullying.
 * Either the content of the article should be corrected to clearly show that this is a secondary meaning which is not used by hundreds of millions of native English speakers, or (my preference) the article should be renamed, to something like Mobbing (sociology), Mobbing (anti-social behavior), Mobbing (psychological abuse) or something similar, to clearly indicate that it is not the primary meaning of the term. Mathglot (talk)
 * Yes, for god's sake let's rename this article. I prefer Mobbing (sociology) to the other two options. Malick78 (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we have some common sense here. This is the most common meaning of the word "mobbing" by some margin, see:
 * General Google
 * Google Books
 * Google Scholar.

The only rivals are mobbing (animal behavior) and the specialised mobbing (Scots law). It just makes things more complicated to change this article name to "mobbing" followed by something in brackets as then a disambguation page would need to be set up which is hardly worth it for so few options. The other two options are linked to at the top of this article page anyway.--Penbat (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it's not correct to say that the only rivals are mobbing (animal behavior) and the specialised mobbing (Scots law). Those may be the only current rivals for which an article on Wikipedia exists, but this is a volunteer project, and the fact that the article corresponding to the WP:PRIMARYNAME or WP:COMMONNAME doesn't exist yet, doesn't mean that it isn't the primary meaning of the term.  The fact is, that mobbing as a hostile or antagonistic or bullying behavior is a sense unknown to almost all native speakers of English, and the current state of the volunteer encyclopedia that omits the primary sense of the term does nothing to change that fact. Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create a new Wikipedia article for your alternative meaning of "mobbing" and we'll take it from there.--Penbat (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also not happy with this term being the default one. While we are at it, let us compile the list of synonyms: dogpile is what used to be used on Usenet...

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mobbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185410/http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/2007/05/13/workplace-bullying-in-the-academic-world/ to http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/2007/05/13/workplace-bullying-in-the-academic-world/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122000546/http://www.workplacemobbing.com/Papers.html to http://www.workplacemobbing.com/Papers.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mobbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509035009/http://www.innovations-training.com/0804CP_Article4.pdf to http://www.innovations-training.com/0804CP_Article4.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mobbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713045605/http://www.lindas.internetbasedfamily.com/f/SHALLCROSS_LINDA1.pdf to http://www.lindas.internetbasedfamily.com/f/SHALLCROSS_LINDA1.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Added explanation for Lorenz's choice of the word mobbing
I added the following, which is supported by an article by Westhues:


 * Lorenz's explanation for his choice of the English word Mobbing was omitted in the English translation by Marjorie Kerr Wilson. According to Kenneth Westhues, Lorenz chose the word mobbing because he remembered in the collective attack by birds, the old German term hassen auf, which means "to hate after" or "to put a hate on" was applied and this emphasised "the depth of antipathy with which the attack is made" rather than the English word mobbing which emphasised the collective aspect of the attack.

I also connected Lorenz's book "On Aggression" to the Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.113.197 (talk • contribs)

"Angry mob" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angry_mob&redirect=no Angry mob] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This article does not need to exist
There is no distinction between "mobbing" and "bullying". "Mobbing" is just a misapplied loanword imported back into English as a false friend by ESL authors. Leymann's work does not distinguish mobbing as a special type of bullying done by multiple people, and he makes clear that a single person can also "mob". This entire article is just a bunch of Germans loudly misunderstanding things. This article should either redirect to bullying, or make very clear in the lede that this meaning is exclusive to foreign academics and one weird Canadian. Previous discussion on this talk page clearly indicates this is consensus, so it is unclear why these lede does not reflect this. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You may well be right, but we still have to follow the citations - the edit you just made was editorializing that was not supported by the citation attached to the paragraph. MrOllie (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this comment just indicates you didn't give the matter due attention. The previous lede is also completely uncited.
 * The citation you refer to only supports the last sentence of the paragraph, so it is irrelevant that it does not support the rest of the paragraph. The reason why I deleted much of this last sentence is because the original sentence is largely nonsensical. The new, simpler sentence better reflects the citation than the rambling nonsense which was there before. Preserving the original citation does not imply that it supports the entire paragraph. That's not how citations work.
 * Meanwhile, changing the lede to reflect actual English usage is the consensus which is found here on the talk page. Although it is old, there is no indication that a later, contradictory consensus was ever reached. It is not clear why the current lede was written against this consensus. The article lede needs to make abundantly clear that the term does not reflect actual English usage. As the previous lede is uncited, correcting it to reflect this consensus does not need to meet a higher burden than the uncited nonsense which it replaces. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're still going to need to cite sources, I'm afraid. WP:V is a core policy. A few comments from 10 years ago are not some kind of perpetual consensus that supports adding unsourced editorializing. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And contrary to your claim above, the existing citation does support the whole paragraph. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't, and regardless, the original sentence is plagiarism and cannot be left as it. The sentence does not use quotation marks, but copies the blurb of the cited work almost word for word. This is not acceptable. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your dictionary links do not actually support the text you are adding. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires editors to work collaboratively. If you agree with my statements, which you admit you do, but consider them insufficiently cited, then you should find supporting citations or discuss them here. You should absolutely not engage in edit warring, but that is what you are doing. My lede is fully supported by Lorenz's own words in his book "On Aggression", which you can find cited in the article under the heading "Development of the concept". If you want to add that citation in the lede too, then do it, but simply reverting an edit you know to be accurate simply because you can't be bothered to read the article and copy the citation is pure laziness. I repeat, editors are supposed to work collaboratively. If you do not wish to collaborate, find another website. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not 'admit' that. I don't really think supporting citations exist - that is why I reverted. And if I am 'edit warring', you are as well. But at least I'm upholding policy. MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Very clear supporting citations have been added. Leymann explicitly states exactly what I have written in the lead regarding the origin of the term as an incorrect translation, and his use of the term with the specific meaning of workplace bullying despite it clearly being the wrong word. The Westhues citation clearly states his beliefs on the subject, and specifically its use for group bullying. There are also citations for the German legal definition of the term, from which later English usage derives, defining it as workplace harassment. As these citations clearly exist, as per your requirements, the matter is resolved, and your incorrect understanding of edit warring and "policy" do not need to be addressed. I continue to encourage you to collaborate and find such citations for yourself, rather than lazily reverting articles. If that's your usual approach, then I really do recommend you go find something else to do, because you're clearly not contributing here. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)