Jump to content

Talk:Gang stalking/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why this topic meets notability now

There have been numerous past deletion discussions about gang stalking and targeted individuals. I listed the seven I found here on the talk page, and this may be all of the actual deletion discussions. The most recent deletion was in 2014.

This topic meets notability now because researcher Sheridan published 2 papers on this topic in 2015 and 2020. The New York Times did a story on this in 2016. Psychology Today' published a 3-article series on this in 2020. In 2017, Vice published two video documentaries about this. These sources were not available during the previous deletions, and now the available media we have to cite makes this topic pass WP:GNG and eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.

  • Sheridan, Lorraine P.; James, David V. (3 September 2015). "Complaints of group-stalking ('gang-stalking'): an exploratory study of their nature and impact on complainants". The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 26 (5): 601–623. doi:10.1080/14789949.2015.1054857.
  • McPhate, Mike (10 June 2016). "United States of Paranoia: They See Gangs of Stalkers". The New York Times.
  • Vice Media (7 November 2017). "The Nightmare World of Gang Stalking" (video). youtube.com. Vice Media.
  • Vice Media (May 24, 2017). "Meet the Targeted Individual Community" (video). youtube.com. Vice Media.
  • Sheridan, L; James, DV; Roth, J (6 April 2020). "The Phenomenology of Group Stalking ('Gang-Stalking'): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experiences". International journal of environmental research and public health. 17 (7). doi:10.3390/ijerph17072506. PMID 32268595.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  • Pierre, Joe (20 October 2020). "Gang Stalking: Real-Life Harassment or Textbook Paranoia?". Psychology Today.
  • Pierre, Joe (October 31, 2020). "Gang Stalking: Conspiracy, Delusion, and Shared Belief". Psychology Today.
  • Pierre, Joe (November 16, 2020). "Gang Stalking: Conspiracy, Delusion, and Shared Belief". Psychology Today.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Past difficulty in writing about this

This was a tense topic in the past and may be so in the future. If anyone has links to past discussions or consensus then please share, so that we can continue to use precedent to keep conversation productive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Title and scope - "gang stalking" and "targeted individual"

Previously people have tried to start Wikipedia articles for "gang stalking" and "targeted individual". I propose that we keep both of these topics here. Gang stalkers are the perpetrators, and targeted individuals are the victims. They exist together and explaining one will explain the other.

"Gang stalking" is the name for the activity and I think the best name for this article. "Targeted individual" should redirect here, where there can be a section on targeted individuals if necessary. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There also are other subarticles like mobbing, online shaming, harassment... Overall my first impression is that this is already more adequately covered at the main stalking article. It includes groups, refers to mobbing, to delusions, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 14:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I have a hard time understanding why we need a separate article from persecutory delusion. It is certainly a kind of persecutory delusion, but I doubt that the article as is will expand much beyond what is currently at this page. Suggest re-merging over there. jps (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This seems to me a WP:POVFORK of electronic harassment, using many of the same sources, but oddly leaving out the extensive discussion by mental health professionals that properly frames the concept as a form of persecutory delusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, gang stalking and electronic harassment are related but separate delusions as some self-identified "targeted individuals" believe that the stalking is happening in ways that are different than electronic surveillance. For example, there are those who are obsessed with black helicopters and others who think that they are being followed by people they see on the street. jps (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This tracks with my understanding, as well. Note that I believe this article should exist, and should be very explicit that this is a form of persecutory delusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge from Stalking

It has a section with "gang stalking" in the title which has sources information relevant to this article. It must be merged heree. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, but some details

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the subjects of articles. Contrary to that rule, I am about discuss the subject of this article because by briefly ignoring all rules I hope that we can get back to making the encyclopedia by focusing on what sources say.

separation of lived experiences from medical issues

Some people see "gang stalking" as a mental health issue or persecutory delusion. Yes, for some people there is a relationship between this and mental problems, but the practice of "calling people crazy" is neither productive as a medical intervention nor a reflection of all of the sources. The academic sources by Sheridan treat this as a public health issue of community harm. Read this one and see -

  • Sheridan, L; James, DV; Roth, J (6 April 2020). "The Phenomenology of Group Stalking ('Gang-Stalking'): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experiences". International journal of environmental research and public health. 17 (7). doi:10.3390/ijerph17072506. PMID 32268595.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

This source says, "we decided to conduct a study of the experiences of those reporting gang-stalking" and summarizes what people say, how the experience affects their lives, and suggests that research could help people experiencing this. The source does not make blanket medical diagnoses of people reporting this experience. I wish that this Wikipedia article could mirror some of the sensitivity of sources like this by presenting multiple perspectives in this article. We should include medical perspectives in this article. Emphasizing those perspectives beyond the original sources is excessive and may not be helpful.

gang stalking distinct from other concepts

The Sheridan 2020 source lists characteristics of gang stalking.

  • online shaming, electronic harassment, Cyberstalking - these are specific kinds of misconduct. Gang stalking may include these kinds of misconduct, but these are not defining and gang stalking may occur without these.
  • harassment, Stalking - yes, gang stalking is a subclass of harassment and stalking
  • mobbing - a "mob" is a group of people, frequently known to the victim, and frequently collaborating with each other. As described in the sources, gang stalkers are frequently unknown to the victim, and while gang stalkers are reported to be coordinated by a central authority, the gang stalkers themselves are often unaware of each other and not part of a mob
  • Delusion, Delusional disorder, persecutory delusion - These are all medical conditions, where in comparison gang stalking is an occurrence or something that happens. The Sheridan papers discuss the phenomenon without making health assumptions about people experiencing gang stalking, so it is possible to give useful information without presuming too much. Yes, this article should describe and link to the persecutory delusion article, because there are sources making that connection.
  • Targeted surveillance - yes gang stalking always includes targeted surveillance

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll just say the academic source that you have cited explicitly frames the gang stalking narratives it presents as a "subjective experience". I don't think anyone wants the article to use the word "crazy" to describe these people, however we don't need to give equal validity to the idea that there may be some coordinated conspiracy harassing random people. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Sheridan et al wrote: "The current study provides a preliminary description of the phenomena involved that was produced by a methodology that did not incorporate pre-conceived assumptions", therefore they are using cautious, "politically correct" terminology. And this is a right approach for scientific research. However many secondary sources, which draw conclusions from the results reported by primary sources, are more blunt and say that in nearly 100% of cases there is no such real thing, i.e., this thing is a delusion, and they do not hesitate to use the latter term. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
checkY @Lembit Staan and LuckyLouie: I agree with both of you. We do not need to give equal validity to all perspectives. Thanks.
I am going to step back from this article for a while now. I appreciate your early thoughts and support for this topic, and if you would, please be proactive in talking to others who come here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, I've read this talk page and the article three times now and I'm still unclear about what the article is supposed to cover. Blue Rasberry seems to be making good-faith efforts to distinguish the article's topic but the more I read the less I know, which is a problem. I can't distinguish whether this is a problem with the sources, the topic definition, or the article topic. Anyone who went through GamerGate knows that there is organized stalking of individuals so the claims that a person might be a victim of such behavior are not inherently implausible. I think this article is trying to say that there are also people that are not such victims but think they are. If the latter is true, this needs to be a much clearer distinction. I'm not going to make that clearer because I don't know if that's the actual intention, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I've never seen "gang stalking" used to refer to anything but the delusion that one is being stalked by a group. I'm starting to think that the page move idea above is a good one, only we should move it to a parenthetical, like Gang Stalking (delusion) just to be clear. That would satisfy WP:COMMONNAME as well as using the best, most descriptive name for the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I am still wanting to step away from this article but finding myself here.
@Eggishorn: There are currently no cases of gang stalking which are confirmed by any expert or third party. Lembit Staan above phrases this as 100% of cases being delusion, which I feel is not accurate. In the sources we have I agree that no authoritative third party has ever matched victim reports to evidence of misconduct. That means that 0% of cases are confirmed, which I think is a better way to describe this because it reviews the cases without making assumptions about the victims. The sources we have do not identify any gang stalkers or perpetrators. "Gang stalking" is a technical term for only this sort of occurrence with hidden, unavailable, or erased evidence.
I think it is fine to follow the lead of the sources which report that people who report gang stalking also have higher than normal rates of diagnosed mental illness. The community of targeted individuals as cited in the sources claim that the gang stalking causes the mental illness. I am not sure how Wikipedia should present this, but our lead researcher Sheridan for example is able to write without presuming too much or diagnosing people based on taking their interview. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The article's scope was also not very well defined to me, but my impression was that it focused on online activity. If so, there are better terms than "gang stalking" that exaggerates with physical attack references (a false equivalence)... Which is also why online shaming came to mind above, but cyberstalking may really be a closer target, if this is not about "impression/narrative of online stalking" or even delusions... —PaleoNeonate – 16:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
And another potential subtopic I forgot above is Troll farm, —PaleoNeonate – 16:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Group stalking

"Stalking Victimisation: Prevalence and Dynamics amongst Spanish University Students" is a 2017 statistical article .

Abstract

Stalking was recently criminalised in Spain and other European countries, following the signing of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, despite a lack of empirical knowledge of victimisation by this phenomenon. Previous research carried out in the usa and in other European countries on victimisation by stalking with female samples has shown that young women are the most frequently victimised group. Based on those findings, research was conducted in Spain with a sample of 1,162 university students, including women and men. This paper presents the main findings of this research, determining the prevalence of stalking victimisation, the victim and stalker profiles, and the dynamics of this type of victimisation.

It defined "group stalking" as stalking by 3 or pore perpetrators. Findings about it:

More quotes:

Statistically significant differences were also found between stalker gender and the number of offenders involved in the stalking (χ2 (6, N=152) = 57.05; ρ < .001, Φ = .433). Whilst 80.6% of men acted alone, women preferred to act in groups (45.7% of the cases); only 42.9% of women stalked alone.

Finally, group stalking (stalking involving 3 or more offenders) was perpetrated by mixed groups (44%), followed by exclusively female groups (36%) and exclusively male ones (20%)

In most cases, the stalking was perpetrated by only one person (61.2%), although occasionally stalkers acted in groups of two, three or even more (Figure  5). (Fig 5. for "3 or more" shows 16.5%)

I guess we can start with section "Group stalking" in Stalking article and wait until it grows to decent size. --Lembit Staan (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be consistent with WP:SPINOFF vs WP:POVFORK, assuming the scope has been established to really be Stalking § Stalking by groups, —PaleoNeonate – 16:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
No it wouldn't because I didnt pay attention that the section already exists, only at a different title. Lembit Staan (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The Truman Show

Since this phenomenon, which was first reported in 2000, seems to be almost identical to the plot of a very well-known movie released in 1998, the obvious conclusion is that people suffering from more common paranoid delusions of being persecuted by sinister cabals (with or without Air Looms), which differ from "gang stalking" only in the size of the gang involved, might perhaps have been a wee bit influenced by the movie?

Your article about the film does mention a rare mental illness officially called "the Truman Show Delusion", which is the specific belief that your whole life is a reality TV show, but gang stalking seems to be very much the same kind of thing, except that the hidden TV cameras are optional, and if it has no connection with the film, the timing is a remarkable coincidence.

Obviously my personal opinion isn't acceptable as a source, but the similarity is so screamingly obvious that surely it must have been discussed in respectable psychiatric literature somewhere or other? And assuming it has been and someone can find the article, isn't this one of the most significant aspects of the syndrome, and well worth a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.55.72 (talk • contribs)

I honestly feel like I've seen a source on this somewhere. I'm going to do some digging. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 09:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"The gangstalking belief system is similar to some other well-established persecutory delusional belief systems, such as the Truman Show delusion, where those affected believe that their lives are surreptitiously being continuously recorded and produced into a reality television show and that everyone or nearly everyone they come into contact with is complicit in the deceit."

via jmir.org/2021/3/e25722. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 09:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
We have an article on that: The Truman Show delusion. I think it might be worth making a section in this article, paraphrasing that one and doing a see also link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, it would take up too much real estate. I just divvied the article up into sections, re-ordered it, and I added that page to the See also section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Overturned to no consensus RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pre-MRV closure

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus to move. Gang stalking delusion seems to have a bit more support than the alternative with brackets. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Gang stalking → Gang stalking delusion – see below Lembit Staan (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I was stalking the "Targeted individual" :-) in my watchlist , hence I see the article. I moved the page because ...er... "'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.'". This article is about a paranoid, not about the real gang stalking, right? Lembit Staan (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan: You moved the article from Gang stalking to Gang stalking delusion.
I propose a move back to "gang stalking" for these reasons:
  1. sources use the name "gang stalking"
  2. sources do not routinely use the name "gang stalking delusion"
  3. We have sources which do not medicalize this issue, so the title should not be medicalized. The two Sheridan papers present this subject as an experience that people report.
We have sources which talk about delusion so I support including that, but not in the title. The sources have non-medical things to say, like what people experience, what effects this has on lives, and what research would support people with this experience. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, I moved it back, but non-medical things to say, like what people experience, what effects this has on lives, -- is a non-argument. Paranoia does have effect on people's life, so does delusion of grandeur. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
My point was that as I am reading, 90-100% cases of complaints reported there was no actual gang stalking. If you think the term "delusion" is too medical, that's a non-argument either. We have lots of terms called "phobia" which are absolutely non-medical. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Finally, as I have just found out, "wikt:delusion" is not a medical term altogether. But a number of specific terms which include the word "delusion" are. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject Crime banner reinstated

Recently the WikiProject Crime banner was removed from this talk page with the edit comments saying that the project is about "real crimes". However, I have put the banner back because I think this article is still within the scope of WikiProject Crime. The project's goal is to improve the quality of articles related to subjects about crime. The project focuses on criminology and a wide range of crime-related topics. I think that people who imagining they are victims of crime is a real phenomenon that is crime related. In many jurisdictions, making a false report of crime is itself a crime, so dismissing this article as "not a real crime" fails to appreciate that people's perception of crime is also important to the field of criminology. This article serves to explain one aspect of false reporting about crime, in that some people have delusions they are being stalked or harassed by a gang of people. Knowing this is is a reported phenomenon helps criminal investigators sort out those false allegations and permits investigators to identify that crime has not occurred even though it has been alleged. This is why the article is in the scope of the project: it is still "crime-related" even though the crime probably only imagined in this instance. One cannot necessarily discount that a crime allegation might be real in the absence of contrary evidence. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a bit of truth

This is a real phenomenon!!! 2600:1008:B021:96E3:F44F:1A81:C05F:D4EC (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Not according to any reliable source anybody has ever been able to provide. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong definition

The definition is wrong, because gang stalking is real. What a bad manipulation: with such a fake definition, the gangstalking risks to be even more harrassive. 2A02:A020:9:92F6:AA33:DFE6:F5ED:BC2E (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

We define it as reliable sources define it. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

An entirely different issue with the lead sentence

Looking through the sources in this article, it seems that the lead sentence is a too-close paraphrase of the source. As it reads currently:

Gang stalking is a novel persecutory belief system experienced by individuals who believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people.

Compare to the first sentence of the source, which reads:

Gangstalking is a novel persecutory belief system whereby those affected believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people, often numbering in the thousands.

Normally I would BOLDly rephrase it and mention the CLOP issue after the fact, but as the text in question is already under dispute, I thought I'd bring it up here first. IMO, definitely in need of a rewrite. And the rest of the article should probably be combed over for similar copyvio concerns... --Equivamp - talk 01:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The text probably adheres so closely to the source because of many drive-by edits, tags, and discussions such as the one in the section above that question whether it is a persecutory belief system or suggest maybe its an experience that needs more research or maybe stalking is actually happening but only some are delusional, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

The article describes gang stalking as a delusion, but I don't think that matches how reliable sources predominantly describe it. Sources paint the picture that gang-stalking is a phenomenon with limited informational that more research is needed to understand. It's often labeled as an "unexplored belief system". It is never labeled outright as delusional, that's always prefixed with something like "seemingly" or "apparently". I think we're taking way to much of a POV here that isn't represented in reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 20:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

When mental health professionals say more research is needed, they mean research into the clinical causes of this novel persecutory belief system, not research into whether a powerful cabal is secretly using technology to achieve mind control over groups of individuals. When they call it a "phenomenon" they are not allowing that mind control might be real. They mean it is an object of an individuals perception, it has symptoms, it affects certain people, it has behavioral consequences, etc. WP:MEDRS sources uniformly refer to these beliefs as delusional. There is no controversy in this regard, and our article reflects this, per WP:PROPORTION, WP:GEVAL, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Calm down LuckyLouie, I'm not advocating for saying mind control is real. I've updated the lede to be more neutral, let me know if you agree with my edit or not. ––FormalDude talk 22:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Dude, your version was full of weasel words that left open the possibility that these people are really being gang stalked, which contradicts the reliable sources. I reversed it, but left the NPOV tag up so that we can continue this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Status quo version:

"Gang stalking" is a novel persecutory belief system experienced by individuals who believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people.[1] The term is associated with the "targeted individual" (T.I.) virtual community formed by like-minded individuals who claim their lives are disrupted from being stalked by organized groups intent on causing them harm.[2][3]

My version:

"Gang stalking" is a phenomenon where individuals believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people.[1] Studies have determined that most cases are highly likely to be delusional in nature, and the phenomenon is considered a persecutory belief system.
The term is associated with the "targeted individual" (T.I.) virtual community formed by like-minded individuals who claim their lives are disrupted from being stalked by organized groups intent on causing them harm.[2][3] Researchers have suggested that online communities could be a catalyst for the experience.

Anyone else want to weigh in? ––FormalDude talk 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The status quo version is definitely better. It is more concise and does not give any weight to the UNDUE/FRINGE idea that organized, large-scale persecution of random individuals could be real, as in your proposal. --Equivamp - talk 00:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
If you read the sources, they all say the delusion is highly likely, but none of them rule out the possibility of real targeted harassment entirely. So why should the lede not portray that? ––FormalDude talk 00:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The sources don't say that gangstalking is considered a persecutory belief system. They describe it as a persecutory belief system without qualification. They describe such beliefs as delusional in basis. They describe TI forums as exacerbating mental illness, or creating psychotic symptoms. Adding is considered is in fact less neutral, in the same way it were if the White genocide conspiracy theory article were to be edited to say that it's considered a political myth. --Equivamp - talk 01:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Well put. I've removed the neutrality tag. I don't have any further concerns. ––FormalDude talk 01:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea that "organized, large-scale persecution" is "unfeasible and impossible to remain secret" is factually incorrect and that's not a matter of opinion. Zerzetsung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung) lasted for two decades and victimized over 10 thousand people. So the point is not valid. @FormalDude's version is more neutral precisely because it doesn't dismiss the existence of the persecution in the definition of Gangs Stalking. Galmeida28 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a delusion. That some somewhat similar thing once happened does not mean that the mental illness does not exist. MrOllie (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It is not a delusion 'by definition'. Self declared victims sustain its legit. When someone complains that something is happening to them and happen to give it a name, you can't define it as a 'delusion' even if the professionals believe it to be so. Galmeida28 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, and reliable sources define it as a delusion. See WP:V, WP:RS, and especially WP:NOR. We cannot use your experiences or your comparisons to historical events as sources for the article. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
What? That logic would have us never labeling anything a delusion. ––FormalDude talk 00:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
You can say multiple researches labeled it a delusion, which obviously is not the same as being a delusion by definition. Galmeida28 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
That would be WP:WEASEL. ––FormalDude talk 01:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
No (and that's insulting, honestly). It seems you don't know what a definition is. The definition of something, real or abstract, is an enumeration of its properties as described by those which define it. I'm listing a set of properties and giving a name to anything that fulfills that list. That's a definition. Being a delusion isn't part of the definition gangstalking - researchers investigated it by its rough definition which appeared on the internet years ago. The way you put it, it would be the same as saying ghosts are delusions by definition. No, as Wikipedia puts it: "A ghost is the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear to the living." and only then "The overwhelming consensus of science is that there is no proof that ghosts exist". That's different from saying 'ghosts are the delusion of seeing the soul or spirit of a dead person". And when I say the difference is obvious I really mean it. Galmeida28 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
You're gonna act insulted and then proceed to accuse me of not knowing what definitions are? I'm done here. ––FormalDude talk 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I was being polite saying 'it seems'. Its clear you don't know. That's want I pointed in my post. Galmeida28 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Once again, per WP:NOR we can not use the personal definition you've come up with on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't me, it was the TI community. Groups of people have the power of defining terms. That's how the vast majority of terms were defined. Who invented the term 'ghost'? A scientist? Galmeida28 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
You are once again arguing your personal beliefs, not proposing concrete changes to the article backed by reliable sources. I've reverted your additions twice yesterday, if you continue this arguing in violation of WP:FORUM, I'll have no choice but to request you be blocked from the page. Please either present your sources or cease this arguing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Persecutory delusion reads According to the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the most common form of delusions in paranoid schizophrenia, where the person believes "he or she is being tormented, followed, tricked, spied on, or ridiculed". I notice this article does not discuss schizophrenia in particular -- should this article have some discussion about paranoid schizophrenia as it relates to patients who are experiencing delusions of being stalked by large groups and organisations? I'm not familiar with the medical literature on the topic, but schizophrenia seems to be brought up often in lay discussions of gang stalking. Endwise (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Schizophrenic patients commonly see patterns and abnormal cause and effect, gang stalking is definitely a result of this illness. With medication their “suspicions” vanish entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.110.240 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

About definition, coining a new term and we have God here, apparently

This is not a forum for speculating about the topic, nor is it a place for insults directed at other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Firstly, the definition of gang stalking is "stalking done on individual by two or more people". Does this ever happen in a real life, is whole another question and it has nothing to do with the definition. If somebody wants to coin a term for a persecutory belief system, please do but do not use the term ´gang stalking` bcause that is reserved for another use. Secondly, as many writers here seem to think that gang stalking does never happen in a real life, I would like point out that to come to that conclusion you need to watch the whole Earth at once for a long period of time to be able determine does some behaviour lack here all together. I do not think anybody has ever done that for it seems to impossible for humans to do. So, how about if writers here would stop outright lying and stick to the facts? UnderLittleFacts (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, editors are bound by policy (WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, etc.) to summarize what reliable sources say. For example: [2]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is neutrality?

This is not going anywhere and further socking should result in a rangeblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1. Protected article 2. Quite short 3. No neutral definition 4. References to study but no further information about study 5. No notable cases mentioned FI961091 (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Notable cases of stalking or persecutory belief system? Well, Ernst Hemingway is an example of the first one. The example of the second one is some criminals who believe that the police is on them which may be just a belief. Difficulty to find reliable source on the second. Ndea5000 (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You’ve used three accounts and an IP in the last half hour. Please stick to one account. Acroterion (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Why this article is protected? It seems to me that Wikipedia wants controversial topics to remain short. I would rather see many different sidepaths and branching off to culture, movies, science, psychology, history, law, etc. But braches are cut off just by defining it non-existant phenomenon period. For example, how many countries around the world recognize in their law that the gang stalking might exist? FIHH506672 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is protected because it frequently attracts editors with their own persecutory belief systems who seek validation by altering the encyclopedia article to conform with their perceptions. They sometimes come from online fora that validate their perceptions, and there have been frequent episodes of disruption. If you have specific reliable sources conforming to WP:MEDRS, bring them forward. Acroterion (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
And you’re up to four accounts now. Stop making new accounts for each comment. Acroterion (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
You do not understand my point. Three claims:
1. It does exist [some people]
2. It does not exist ["reliable source"]
3. It might exist [concretic reality]
If you had to bet all your money on one of these claims to be correct, which one you would choose? Now, if it gang stalking might exist, change the terminology! Or if you do not change it, some people have to coin a new term to describe a possible real life phenomena and I do not like that because I think that the idea of gang stalking being real existed first and then only the persecutory belief system. Defining concepts anew is not ok. Words mean what they mean. 93.50.124.231 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say, and they say that this is a mental illness. Your personal thoughts don't override the sources. MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TargetedUK

@TargetedUK: please discuss the changes you want to make here first. If you continue inserting unsourced opinion into the article, you'll likely wind up blocked by an administrator. We have strict rules about sourcing edits made to articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I've edited a Wikipedia article, so am not familiar with the process. Nowhere did it say that my edits or inserts need to be discussed with anyone before posting, although I have to admit that I skipped over the T's and C's...

As someone who has personal first-hand experience of gang stalking, I feel strongly that this subject should be accurately portrayed, which it currently is not in this media.

I dispute the portrayal of victims of this widespread crime as being mentally ill, as in this Wikipedia article. There is an inexhaustible amount of information and publications available in support of gang stalking being a real phenomenon, however none of these are referred to or quoted in the Wikipedia article. TargetedUK (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The foundation of Wikipedia is reliable sources. Your changes were not reliably sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I will return with the relevant reliable sources and will then make changes to this article which will represent a more balanced and factual description of gang stalking. TargetedUK (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime, having now read some of the 'Terms of use' please note the following from the 'Wikipedia Behavioural Guidelines':- - Do not bite the newcomers - Di not be hostile towards fellow editors, newcomers in particular - Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and POLITE manner. TargetedUK (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And that's what I did, until you kept repeatedly trying insert your personal opinion into the articles. I escalated my warnings in the hopes you'd start taking this seriously & read the rules. Now here we are, so let's see what sources you can come up with. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Two additions

Please add the following:

1. Add a missing sentence to the paragraph of the Sheridan and James study [13].

The study is, however, exploratory in nature, and replications of its findings are necessary before they can be considered to be clearly established.


2. Add a paragraph below the paragraph of the Sheridan and James study[13]:

In the Sheridan and James study [13] the definition of a delusion was taken from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, [DSM-V]. However: "The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity."[]

Link to: Wikipedia - Delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion Petermooring (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done (1) violates WP:SYNTH (2) is an attempt to water down the meaning of delusion, which is the correct word in this context and requires no additional qualification. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Jamie, these are inappropriate changes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
You are wrong:
(1) This sentence is from Sheridan and James study, read the study, check the last lines. It also should have been in the abstract. Not mentioning this sentence gives the study the wrong status on the Wikipedia page.
(2) 'which is the correct word in this context': This is your personal opinion. I am referring to the Delusion page on Wikipedia.
As a matter of of fact, the whole Sheridan and James study is flawed. It mentions:
"The remainder were such as to admit only of two possibilities: either the stalking was delusional, or the individuals were victims of elaborate and extremely expensive behaviour organised, for no apparent reason, by those with huge personal wealth or by government agencies."
The study nowhere mentions that it investigated activities toward citizens by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Western countries.
In 2006 there were two court cases in the Netherlands about Personal Disruption (Persoonsgericht Verstoren). Here the police used stalking methods which they call "letting someone know they are being watched".
Does this mean that the Sheridan and James study does not apply to the Netherlands, or can we assume that this happens in similar ways in all Western countries?
Again I ask to make the changes. Petermooring (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
No. You disliking the study is not a valid reason for its removal. And we cannot use a Wikipedia article as the reason for discarding a reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with liking or disliking. The way the study is presented on the Wikipedia page is misleading because it is missing the important sentence from the study: "The study is, however, exploratory in nature, and replications of its findings are necessary before they can be considered to be clearly established. " Petermooring (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Many, many studies contain some version of that language. It about securing continued funding for follow up work. It is not a reason to try to undercut the study's findings in our article. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Ollie is correct, the phrasing is your basic "cover your ass" wording used in studies all the time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Petermooring: the encyclopedia's editorial policies prevent editors from adding their own caveats, observations and conclusions, which we call original research. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so we can only reflect the majority expert view, i.e. gang stalking is delusional. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not talking about original research. I have read the study and the way the study is presented on the Wikipedia page is misleading because it is missing the important sentence from the study: "The study is, however, exploratory in nature, and replications of its findings are necessary before they can be considered to be clearly established. " Petermooring (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
What would be misleading would be putting that into our article out of context to try to undermine the study's findings. MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, WP:MAINSTREAM. The caveat you want to add would only be appropriate if a study's findings were at odds with mainstream views on a topic. But both studies by Sheridan and James have significant citation impact and reflect the mainstream expert view, so a disclaimer isn't needed here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gang_stalking/Archive_1&oldid=1239362654"