Talk:Stalking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stalk (botany)

"Stalk" redirects here. But there is nothing about Stalk, the longish part of a plant supporting the seed-carrying parts of the plant.

Karada's Way

Karada, I am at a loss to explain why you would delete the information I provided about cyberstalking. The information has been restored with enhancement to flow and readability. I cannot think of a more appropriate and scholarly contribution for this particular article (cyberstalking) than the information I provided about the abuse of Web-based resources (i.e. search engines, domain registrars, Usenet) not only by individual cyberstalkers, but by groups of cyberstalkers whose gang-like activity is made uniquely possible by the characteristics of the Internet (e.g. anonymity, cybersleuthing, and lack of geographic distance makes cooperative networking simple). It's not only verifiable facts, but the facts are also stable over time. The phenomenon I document is an enduring trait of the Internet and not an attempt to call attention to a single stalker or flame war.

For you to designate such a contribution as "kookery" is abusive and unscholarly and turns reality on its head. The term kookery itself is meaningless, serving only an expressive (i.e. valuative) function. All the facts are empirical and verifiable, and none of the facts are presented in an irrational or incomprehensible manner. The reference to a particular news group, the only aspect of the report I consider even remotely disputable, is clearly marked as illustrative, and all readers are aware the group is being used as both (a) an example to give concrete form to cold facts and abstract concepts and (b) a reference (if you examine the group, here is an example of the facts).

I suspect your problem is really not with the merits of the content itself but with the periphera (i.e. tenor, motive, venue). If you have a problem with what you think is my motivation, I do not think it is material. Regardless of what my motives were for writing this piece (and these motives are not endemic to the text), the material is factual and verifiable and it is not offered as opinion. More importantly, this information is socially conscientious, civically responsible, and capable of preventing many cases of cyberstalking.

So please cease and desist your following me around Wikipedia. I am not trying to spam Wikipedia with this content. I think you'll find that if you simply give it its due place (and you can decide whether it should be here in Cyberstalking or in Stalking), that I will stop reviving it. I keep putting it in various places ONLY BECAUSE you have been deleting it and then attempting to pass me off as a spammer or vandal. I think your motives / emotions are more transparent than mine.

Moreover, efforts to improve this content may include qualification, editing, and sidebar discussion, but wholesale deletion and redirection to empty shells is simply extreme, inappropriate, and thus "vandalizing."

Merge?

Should we merge cyberstalking into this? No doubt it's true 19:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Correcting Celebrity Bias

I'm going to be editing this article shortly (basically, once I've found where my references are in the mess I call my apartment), because it's disproportionately attentive to obsessional celebrity stalkers and gives dismayingly short shrift to the domestic violence/abusive relationship stalking that comprises the vast majority of stalking, and leads to the majority of stalking-related homicides. Anyway, just announcing that, and inviting anyone else to join me in this endeavor. The Literate Engineer 05:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I've been watching this article for the last few weeks as part of some hunting talk on hunting methods and the amount of space that folks are spending on what seems celebrity gossip is pretty suprising. If one is concerned with stalking as an issue of domestic violence or political persecution, this article seems to denigrate those in favor of a "who's who" of celebrity trivia. Since people seem genuinely interested in these things (and given the recent anniversary of John Lennon's death, with reason), perhaps it would be a good idea to "hive off" all the celebrity stuff and let this one focus on stalking as it relates to civilians. Cyberstalking seems to have gotten its own article (which is almost an instruction manual on technique), so perhaps celebrity stalking should as well, to make this more relevant to "normal" people with safety concerns or the people who want to help them. This would also allow those who are interested in celebrity stalking to discuss that in more detail. Rorybowman 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've hived this off to List of stalked celebrities. Rorybowman 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychological aspects?

Does anyone know more about the psychological aspects of stalking (regarding the stalker, that is, not the victims)? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 02:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The short answer: You can procure a copy of J. Reid Meloy's book, The Psychology of Stalking, published 1998. It is the first monograph ever published on this topic.

The long answer: I have read the book just mentioned cover to cover, yet summarising the topics here proves quite arduous to me so I leave this to other users. Mission9801 02:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

A 14 year old was having trouble reading the beginning to the article. She wanted to know what an idea of stalking was, so I gave her the wikipedia address. Didn't check the rest of the article, but the first paragraph was badly written.

Grammar is ok now. Thanks to all who improved the corrections I started. You can compare what the first paragraph was like before I edited it, to the current one by going to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stalking&diff=22359160&oldid=22297826

Princess Diana

Is it just me, or does this article suggest that Princess Diana was killed by stalkers? Is that a POV declaration that the author believes the papparazzi killed her? Rhesusman 22:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted the note "disputed" in a reference to the Princess Diana incident. Mission9801 04:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added George Bush Jr. on the stalking list because, one month after winning the heated 2000 US election, he was followed by one John Hughes (not the film director), who said to Secret Servicemen that he had a letter for him. These men checked his car parked nearby, in which they found two shotguns, a 9mm handgun, and a rifle, and was arrested on the spot. This guy would be famous a year later for claming to be Meg Ryan's "fianceé". My source is http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,9456,00.html

Persecution vs. stalking

It would probably help to distinguish between stalking (implies an unauthorized individual is doing stalking) and political persecution (where the authorities are doing the "stalking"). Fplay 05:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There already is an article on persecution. Good thinking though, I added a link to persecution to the article. Izehar 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Put another way: There are several references to "persecution" situations on this page, in an off-topic manner. They should be moved to the persecution page. Fplay 22:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense, but isn't there some overlap between the two? Izehar 22:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the article it is describing the law around stalking, and it is important to stay focussed on statute: not what some individual may think is annoying or rude. I'm not a legal expert but usually there are specific acts which are explicitly forbidden. When one gets into such vague territory as "asking friends for information" one is getting a bit away from the law and the term "stalking" is not what is discussed. A lot of bad behavior exists outside of the legal prohibitions of theft, assault, stalking or rape. Persecution and rudeness are not necessarily stalking and it is important not to lead people to think they are. Rorybowman 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Was in this morning creating stalking (disambiguation) and changed the "contacting family" line at the top to better reflect most statutes. While many stalking laws do explicitly address contact of third parties such as family and friends, not all do, and I am not aware of any which forbid public records checks. Such provisions may be made by a court under many circumstances, but that has nothing to do with the crime or statute of stalking generally. If someone has a statute with a counter-example, please note it, but generally that sort of thing would be addressed by a protective order, as is often the case in high-profile celebrity-stalking cases. The stuff on skits probably falls under that (or persecution) as well, but the intentional fear aspect is much more in line with stalking statutes. - Rorybowman 15:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales?

Is he really being stalked or has been stalked by anyone? Or is it just a joke? In The Flesh?

Many people who feel defamed by Wikipedia, especially one ordinary citizen by the name of Daniel Brandt (whose only claim to fame is that he started Wikipedia Watch and should not have a Wikipedia article devoted to him), believe it is Wales who is, in a manner of speaking, the "stalker."

moved from article

Gang Stalking & Usenet

Gang stalking is a particularly pernicious form of stalking in which the morality of the individual stalker is further diluted in technological anonymity and group consciousness. The unmoderated Usenet news groups, widely accessible by way of Google Groups and other ISPs, are widely known for its cyberstalking gangs, which derive enjoyment from harassing, defaming, and disrupting persons who voice unconventional wisdom or complaints on the Web. The unmoderated Usenet news groups offer hobby-hungry hatemongerers a headquarters from which to remain untraceably anonymous and form strategic alliances with other masked parties. What also makes these gangs dangerous is the division of labor among members with a wide range of skill sets. Members of the gang operating out of sci.psychology.psychotherapy, for example, have engaged in hacking, identity theft, and impersonation to menace their victims, even going as far as to recruit Usenetters from other news groups in the stalking and drag the family members of victims into the defamation. Gang members with criminal and/or psychiatric histories are called on to instill fear, and propaganda specialists and professional shills create and spam-advertise networks of search optimized Web-based dossiers. The dossiers and their dissemination throughout Usenet's news group and Web-based forums are designed to manipulate public perception of victims such that the results of a Google search on the victim's name will be front-loaded with false and unflattering information. Just what is possible in Usenet-based gang stalking?

1. Stalker A submits a spurious negative review of Victim A's book in Amazon.com's customer review section under the name of Victim B (impersonation). Stalker A illicitly procured the credit card number of Victim B to "authenticate" the spurious negative review (identity theft) in order to make it more difficult for Victim A, even with Victim B's assistance, to have the review expunged.

2. Even though Victim C's phone and residential address information has been unpublished for years, Stalker B uses Web-based commercial people data search services such as Intelius.com and peopledata.com to not only locate Victim C, but also a history of Victim C's residential addresses, which are then cross-referenced with other information to find the names and current locations of Victim C's parents, siblings, spouse, and roommates. A Web search and a Google Groups search on the name of Victim C's wife reveals 582 vulgar, libelous, and occasionally threatening messages that feign fly-on-the-wall knowledge of what went on in her career and her bedroom.

3. Stalker C impersonates Victim D by forging e-mails in Victim D's name while concealing / falsifying the IP source info to make Victim D appear like a spammer or a troll. Stalker C, using multiple aliases and e-mail addresses, and possibly some real confederates from the gang, bombard Victim D's ISP, Web hosting service, news group posting service, and possibly even law enforcement with false reports / complaints of abuse. Victim D's services are temporarily suspended until Victim D persuades services to examine the evidence and broader situation more closely.

Comments

The text above appears to be an account of a specific instance of alleged cyberstalking. While there may be some useful material here that we can summarize, it seems to me that this is too personal for the article in its present state. And in any case, it probably should be in Cyberstalking rahter than this article. -Willmcw 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the author of that content. It used to be in cyberstalking and I agree that it belonged there, but it is here because Karada keeps deleting it wholesale without proportion or due process. This is not a measured response and I believe it constitutes vandalism. The material has been restored and enhanced for flow and readability. It is as IMpersonal, factual, and verifiable as articles come, and I can't imagine a more appropriate, scholarly, and socially conscientious piece for Cyberstalking. It never ceases to amaze me as a social psychologist that an expert can be so roundly and inappropriately sanctioned by non-experts. If you think the material can be improved, edit, trim, or expand it. But the response thus far is not an intelligent or measured response and the way people are responding to my Web site screen capturing these events for the public, it would appear the public agrees.

Didn't this material used to be in Cyberstalking? I am very much for distributing such sub-topical material as cyberstalking and celebrity stalking to separate articles. I'm not aware of a specific policy, but sometimes more isn't better and the main focus of an article gets lost in a sea of detail. Rorybowman 21:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with Rorybowman and largely with Willmcw. If this information is to be kept at all, it needs 1) to be condensed, and 2) sent over to cyberstalking. Also, I'd like someone to give me some reasons why the list of stalked celebrities isn't trivia we can do without. The Literate Engineer 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Editors may wish to look at Gang stalking. Apparently an editor, using various names and IPs, is placing this type of material all over Wikipedia. -Willmcw 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

B.S. It's only in multiple places because the author knows the material is being vandalized and inappropriately deleted by someone who has the gaul to turn around and use the multiple places as a justification for continued deletion. Cute.

Stalking a former lover isn't unrequited love

Just changed the "or other cases of unrequited love" to "cases of unrequited love" because, if a stalker is following a former lover, then the lover most probably knows that the stalker is in love with them. It's not a secret.

I've restored it. "Unrequited" doesn't mean secret - it means unreturned or unreciprocated. See American Heritage Dictionary. 86.140.109.221 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Toltecs?

Is this really notable? As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation I don't think the opening sentences are the place for the following paragraph:

:In Toltecs learning, stalking is defined as follows: "Stalking is quite simply a type of manipulation that is carried out with the express purpose of getting the other person to do what you want him or her to do but so that you will both benefit from that act. Ordinarily, plain manipulation means forcing another person into doing your bidding for your own self-centred gain, but at the other person's expense. However, stalking means getting the other person to co-operate with you intelligently, so that both of you can benefit, and therefore win." (from This Darned Elusive Happiness by Theun Mares)

While all this is very interesting, I don't think it belongs here. Perhaps it should go into an article of its own, in Toltecs or Toltec (Castaneda). At the outside I can see some sort of "other views" subheading way down below or within game stalker but this seems to me fiction trivia (as an aside from Carlos Castaneda's Journey to Ixtlan) and irrelevant to this article which is primarily about the crime. My initial bold inclination is to remove it and discuss it here, but I'll await other input. - Rorybowman 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. -Will Beback 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed also. File it under Toltec (Castaneda) or Nagual to make it clear that it's a Castenada neologism, and little to do with the historical Toltecs. 86.140.109.221 11:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole top of the page is too large. Perhaps it should be moved into Stalk (disambiguation)? -Super Sam 12:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. -Will Beback 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page created

Given that the crime of stalking is the most dominant use of the term today I have created the page Stalking (disambiguation) and moved all references to hunting, grasses, mathematics and Carlos Castaneda over there. - Rorybowman 15:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why resistance about inclusion of gang stalking?

I was just curious to know why there is resistance at Wikipedia to include the issue of gang stalking on this page or anywhere else? It is very, very common for a stalker to enlist the help of others in their harassment of an individual. Government conspiracies aside, this is a real problem and not a new one. Rejected suitors who become stalkers will often enlist their friends to help them harass their target. Lawsuits involving controversial issues often inspire gang stalking towards plaintiffs and defendants alike. (After Lois Jenson filed her lawsuit against Eveleth Mines--the inspiration for the movie North Country--you better believe she was gang stalked.) This is a phenomenon we all have seen as early as elementary school when groups of kids gang up on one who is seen as weak, usually chronically harassing them. So, why isn't this issue seen as "real?" 68.92.198.61 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is whether it is real or not, but as a crime that would be Conspiracy (crime) and not stalking. The issue on Wikipedia, as I understand it, has to do with the way in which this subject was in appropriately inserted at one point, over and over again, as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. Perhaps in a year or so someone else can address the issue, but for now the issue is closed and probably will be for some time to come. Attempts to reinsert the issue here would (unfortunately) probably be seen as vandalism. - Rorybowman 20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. I guess the difficulty I have with "conspiracy" is that it assumes a degree of organization to the crime, and gang stalking can be quite mindless and spontaneous. In much of the gang stalking that occurs, I don't think everyone sits down and discusses how those involved can ruin someone elses life. But since their behavior towards the victim is chronic, extraordinary damage, and even ruination, often occurs as a result. Still, I respect the controversy surrounding the topic, and thank you for the input. (You will probably see people continue to insert this topic as those who experience gang stalking will continue to think it should be included here.) 68.92.198.61 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Obsessional pusruit

I have created the article Obsessional pusuit as a redirect to this article. As I understand it, there is a shade of difference between obsessional pursuit (the behavior) and stalking (the criminal offense), but as this article handles them pretty much interchangeably I think it is appropriate. --G0zer 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yushchenko. . .?

I've never heard or read that his poisoning had anything to do with being stalked (I'm pretty sure the consensus is that he was poisoned by political opponents). I'm replacing him, as an example of someone attacked by a stalker, with John Lennon, which is pretty much universally accepted. That said, if I'm wrong about Yushchenko, then by all means, put him back. My rain face 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that -- I misread the initial sentence to distinguish it from the one above it (re: violent attacks on victims of stalking) which used John Lennon as an example. I still don't think that Yushchenko is a legitimate example, though, so I replaced it with the Reagan assassination attempt which is known to have been committed by a stalker of Jodie Foster's (apparently he didn't know to distinguish between the actress and her character in Taxi Driver.) I'm not sure how to put links in here (I'm guessing it's not standard html) but here's a source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande02.html My rain face 20:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalking? What is illegal by fact, What is human rights (ie free speech), What is wooing ?

Hey. Allot of unproven information is in this article. Please site a source that "stalkers prosecute their victims" "stalkers accuse the victim of mental disability". I doubt any accepted case involving a conviction of stalking exist having these attributes based on my readings.

I'm complaining that this article strays from what is historically law, and what is accusation of what isn't wished for that isn't prosecutable. And I complain the article tends to demonize things that aren't bad, and tends to create panic over normal things, and is one more of many articles suggesting a method of retribution during breakups. And may be a form of feminisim / male hate.

There are a ton of "how to convict your male of stalking without proof of injury" and "what the law should be on exiting a relationship so a female can control and punish in the exiting" pages on the internet. But they aren't law in US or elsewhere. And shouldn't be.

I've read allot of cases. Convicted stalkers, statistically, are mostly threatening (which is illegal with or without a stalking law) - and otherwise are mentally unfit people doing crazy enough things to cause fear (harassment). Also occasionally a stalking conviction is due to failing to comply to a restraining order issued to prevent a specific nuisance action (tort law) - like continual unconsented contact that grows to a nuisance level and is unreasonable (for which a restraining order can be issued).

I feel the "stalking charge" is a legal device for typifying the defendants character before evidence or arguement is given to prove character. There are already good laws making injury, harrassment, and continual nuisance illegal. Stalking is a late comer adding nothing new, and no new penalties. To me "stalking talk" seems an effort to typify what wemen hate or fear about relationships with men and provide a way for them to punish men.

Furthermore, the article demonizes typical failures in relationship that typically have resolution - like contact after she says it's ended - which is typical of angry females to create such situation.

The article also demonizes the inept or disturbed males who are non injurous - who may deserve compassion for inability or disability - saying a stalker would be like that so they will become stalkers - a logical falicy and a defamation of those who are innocent of injurous actions.

Please look to history (immense collections of famed love letters) to find the context of love suitors and love letters et al. They are sometimes successful - sometimes not - never have been illegal - shouldn't be demonized by people who "have a feeling they are being followed and fear it". Love is crazy. It should be allowed. Many attempts at love historically haven't been quite sain, accepted by the receiver at first, and so on :) YET! Many stalking rants suggest love letters shoudl be made illegal unless they are "pre-accepted".

Finally. Spying isn't illegal :) And usually speech or movement isn't either. But cheating on your loved one is. If you cheat on your mate they have a right to know and pretty much figure you aren't going to volunteer the info. Shame on you!

Please stick to the facts. "Stalking" in most states is a serious charge involving injury or threated injury that can convict with imprisonment (the ultimate removal of all human rights freedom guarunteed by the UN) and no judge imprisons because of difficulties in breakups. Something bad, illegal, must occur for a judge to have jurisdiction in a "typical love dispute / breakup".

People who suggest "stalking is whenenver a woman is uncomfortable" are actually WHY some states will not accept stalking laws: it's because some stalking law advocates wish to make illegal any effort to mend / create love: which any reasonable person knows is crazy. They tend to make illegal whatever a woman wishes to punish a male with - even his alleged thoughs.

How many movies show a guy trying to create love unsucessfully throughout the movie to end up gaining it at the end ? This is what the stalking laws the fanatics propose would make illegal (if unintentionally). And - it would jeopardize those seeking love to be *afraid* of abusive people who would use the laws retributionally or coldly without reason and compassion.

Allowing a female to control males by stating when an arguement / love attempt is over (unconsented communication) is ... you guessed it ... a hot topic in freedom of speech. Dissalowing free speech allows abusive people to limit arguements to one side by use of legal force - which is currently illegal. It would allow anyone to control speech of others with legal tricks - and allow all kinds of abuses to go unchallenged. (remember we're excluding speech of threats - which have always been illegal)

On the other hand :) Wooing should have limits. When is too much become a nuisance? That's been a civl court matter I beleive (not criminal). But no one has set a limit to love. All this talk of "stalking" and failed lovers. No one has suggested fair rules to wooing for anyone to follow. And not fair: "once I say what you should do you have to do it or go to jail 'cause I make the laws (note the threat imbibed with guns and capture - the charge of stalking threatens the accused)". Thing is... There are responsibilites of both loved ones in exiting a relationship. A "hang up" isn't responsible. A threat of jail isn't responsible. Nor, of course, threats otherwise. Yes - reasonable communication works - and that's why *most* people get along and don't complain. They communicate.

Note I know some men are predators (and that some wemen are evil in their typical ways) - and laws exist about that already :)

The good I see in the stalking law is that makes illegal the kind of unexplained following that becomes abnormal (which amazingly hadn't been illegal per say - except under nuisance law). This protects women from potentially mad people - where before some wemen were turned away by police who didn't know how to act because they didn't know if it was criminal. HOWEVER - such people are rare (mad people, dumb police) - looking to conviction statistics it's plain rare. I strongly suggest most "stalking" cases fit well under existing laws (threats, harrassment, phone, etc) and that allot of web pages promoting fear and illegalism of anything a woman points her finger at are unproductive and even harmful rantings - which even prevent states from adopting stalking laws.

Personally I've never followed. But I hear it is human nature to try it here or there and is sometimes meant to satisfy legitimate questions one can't just ask or is afraid to. Of course: I'd find it unnerving after a few times and would want a stop put to it with restraining order there after (unless it was my love doing it - talk time). Me? I'd call and talk it over first if it was an aquaintence who followed. I'm a sucker that way.

I suggest people communicate and try to see eye to eye. Use mediators if they can't communicate fairly with each other / hang ups / argues. Obtain restraining orders if all else fails (no criminal conviction) and, lastly, let the judge do their thing if the restraining order is broken. I don't suggest abusing court time with relationship woes unless there are real reasons - not just wishes, characterisations, vandetas / retributions, suspicions - but a mad person on the loose (very rare) / a broken restraining order / an immedate threat (that wasn't a heat of the moment threat made by a loud-mouth).

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.219.179 (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 

Psychology And Mental Health Of The Stalker

While there is exclusive literature about the mental state and psychological problems of the stalking victim, I think the same should be contributed to that of the stalker.

Psychology of, in particular, obsessional stalking, has not been researched much and I think this should also be noted and that the DSM has failed to yield any answers for the mental condition and diagnosis of stalkers besides the disorder, erotomania ( in which a delusion has to be present).

That actually isn't true. Mullen and Meloy have both research the psychology of stalkers. Not surprisingly, there is a high rate of borderline and narcissistic personality disorders amongst them. 70.237.27.111 17:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should be included in fact I think some of the conditions effectikng thye person being stalked also effect the stalker. Plus they could be considered obssesiv e and psychotic. On a side note as long as it doens't end in violence wouldn't you consider a stalker to be mos loyal? 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Added readings, and put back cited sources that were removed

These books are highly respected within the stalking support community and health community--Mullen and Meloy are considered the top experts in the field.

Also, I replaced the citations that had been removed from the list with the question that they may have been covered earlier. None of them appear earlier in the article--though one comes from the same website, none of them come from the same page or article. Besides, it is common for any article written anywhere to refer to the same source more than once. Even when that occurs, the sources needs to be cited. All points in the article need to be verifiable, according to Wikipedia policy. This can be with books, articles, or reliable web documents, but everything needs to be backed up with sources, even if they are redundant. As it stands, there are few sources cited anywhere in the article. Aine63 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited information

Please do not add anymore uncited information to this article. All information should be added with a link to the source, or a reference to a book. There is already too much info here that isn't backed up, and if the sources don't get added soon, it too will be deleted. Aine63 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing word?

"The stalking may be so subtle that the victim may not even aware that it is happening". Should that be "may not even be aware that"? Is there a verb 'aware' that I'm not ... you know ... aware of? (English is not my native language.) Suede 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, you are right. Thanks for the heads up. Aine63 22:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Target of External Resources

I couldn't help but notice that all of the provided external resources (links, etc.) are oriented at helping someone deal with being stalked. Not all situations where someone believes or claims they are being stalked are really what the "victim" claims or believes it to be; sometimes, fear of a stalker may be the result of paranoia, and other times, the "stalker"'s actions do not qualify them as a stalker. I'd imagine there must be at least one resource somewhere for people who are accused of stalking. Although, from a legal/criminal/justice standpoint, this could potentially allow some real issues to go unresolved, it would also provide information that could help the innocent, who are in a sense becoming the victims, as accusations are made against them. Is it not a purpose or goal of Wikipedia to provide accurate, detailed information on all aspects of an issue? And yes, this is my first editing action on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I have formed some opinions already on the issue, but it would be nice to see that such opinions are not being disregarded. Lastly, if my message looks like it belongs on a forum and not an Edit page of a Wiki, that is because I have never done this before. Were-Aardwolf 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that we need at least one link to something like an "is this stalking?" site, if such a site exists. Were-Aardwolf 01:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but the practical question "Is this stalking?" is answered in local laws. The existing link to State Laws works, and it also provides news summaries, including a stalker found to have multiple targets he had followed for months who had not yet become aware of him when police found his creepy index of notes. The best state laws consider stalking similar to offenses like wire-tapping, interfering with mail, gradual poisoning (i.e., some actions may be found crimes or misdemeanors whether or not the target knew of the danger or had formed any specific fears). Of course, most stalking victims would be delighted to have hard evidence of related crimes, such as burglary of their home by the stalker, and would prefer to leave talk of their emotions out of court transcripts.

Some state laws -- and the opening of this Wikipedia article -- define stalking in terms of fear caused. If the target person instead feels normal, sensible anger, it may be impossible to press stalking charges in a jurisdiction where prosecutors must show psychological injury. You might want to beef up the link somehow, adding emphasis to the need to know local laws exactly as they stand at the time, rather than relying on general concepts outlined here. An innocent person shouldn't live in fear of false or frivolous prosecution, while a genuine stalking victim may need to find evidence to bring other charges against their tormentors. A lot may depend on which side of the state line you call home. 152.163.100.7 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see a resource link to "Is this Stalking?", but not just for the stalkers. I am having trouble with a classmate following me (he has followed me to work even, but only once) and I would like to know where this falls as far as stalking versus just unwanted advancement. He seems to fit under many points in the article, but not all of them, and I am not sure if it is acceptable to take action, or if I should wait for him to subside. Since my safety could be in danger if he is a stalker, this is a very tedious question. Many others would probably feel the same. How do you know when someone is a stalker or when they are just stupid? If they don't go away after you tell them to leave you alone (say 5 or 6 times) are they stalking you or are they just persistant? How long should you wait before claiming he is stalking you? Should you even bother waiting? Wonderbunny2000 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The basic definition of stalking is unwanted, inappropriate behavior. You ARE being stalked. Contact the campus police and your city's police department to make them aware of this man's actions; tell your work superiors and your college dean about the situation. Keep a log documenting his actions. Make people aware you have a stalker - do not remain silent because you are ashamed or embarrassed; many stalkers count on your silence since you are unintentionally - and in his mind - colluding with his fantasy. Above all, have NO contact with him. For example, when he speaks to you, do not answer. Do NOT try to be nice to him and treat him as if he shares your values in life. Remember, if he shared your values, he would not be stalking you and would give you the right to say "no". No is a one word sentence...with no explanations needed and said only once. Do NOT try to understand his behavior or feel sympathy for him; his desires are HIS problem, not yours. Hopefully, over time, he will become bored with you and sadly, chose another target. Read about stalking and obsession so you can recognize obsessive behavior and be prepared for his demonstrating anger - or any other emotion - against you. This man has created a fantasy about you...and to him, that fantasy is reality. These men only stalk frightened women, as they are looking for power and control. He is already trying to control you by creating this fantasy - and he EXPECTS you to be his fantasy woman. He believes he knows you more than you know yourself. In cases of stalking, it is better to take the offensive rather than the defensive. Recognize that you did not ask for this nor want this - and that you are NOT responsible for his actions (no matter how much he blames you for what he thinks he has to do to get your attention). My reference? I am a stalking survivor. Norarobingale (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on every word of Norarobingale. Stalking can be very harming. My girl friend, who is teacher and artist, had been stalked for months by a coworker before I knew her. I had a close friendship with her for more than one year, talking together many, many nights, having looked at the stars often - and it still happened that she became just frightened when we were at some mile of distance to her home. It nearly wrecked our relationship. She needed a lot of time to open up again. It is easily traumatic and can be very damaging, just as a physical assault. (anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Norarobingale: First of all you refer to the alleged stalker as "man" several times when Wonderbunny2000 clearly states he is a "classmate". This means his is more than likely a boy. Second, you say things like; "This man has created a fantasy about you...and to him, that fantasy is reality", "He is already trying to control you by creating this fantasy - and he EXPECTS you to be his fantasy woman. He believes he knows you more than you know yourself." These are all assertions on your part, about someone you've never even met, based on a few lines from one person about a situation that may in reality be entirely different. Your advice is heavily biased towards pre-judging the alleged stalker as dangerously as possible without knowing anything about them, that in itself is a dangerous thing to do. Finally, you say "These men only stalk frightened women, as they are looking for power and control." That simply isn't true (and well done for ignoring the fact that women stalk too). The obsessive behavior of one person can be entirely unrelated to the emotional state of the object of their affection. Many stalkers can obsess over people they've never even met. They may be trying to exercise a form of control, but how the victim feels about it is irrelevant, in the stalker's mind it's what they themselves feel that counts.Ozymandias King of Kings (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who questions the validity of this being a "crime against humanity" to do some research into "gang stalking http://gangstalking.wordpress.com/comments/feed/, cause stalking http://xiandos.info/Surveillance,_Psychotronics_and_(Gang-)Stalking_OperationsInsert non-formatted text here ,vigilante stalking and mind control/psychological torture" It has become clear that these crimes are being perpetrated on a scale so large that it seems almost incomprehensible to believe and is sometimes state/corporate sponsored --Targetindividualny 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)TIinNewYork

Fair Judgement?

Many of the types of stalker given describe almost all people in accidental interaction with each other. The article does state that not all types of stalking are malicious, but it keeps a consistent tone of disgust towards stalkers, denigrating them as dangerous individuals even if they are just as harmless as anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragodon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that this article should also include information on how some people THINK that someone is stalking them when that person is really just happened to be TAKING THE SAME ROUTE as them... 71.134.249.144 (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried I could become a stalker. What can I do to avoid it? I have few spells of such ardent lucidity as I am experiencing now. --79.66.98.65 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you get psychiatric help before you commit a state or federal offense (wherever place or country you live in) or actually stalk or harrass someone. However, maybe the other person refuses to associate with you (is the other person male or female?) and it's best to leave that person alone for now on. I don't know if you already knew this person as an acquintescene for a short period of time, but you became fixated or desire to meet them.

I also believe how the definition of stalking or harrassment is from interchangable social cues here in North America (I'm in Southern Cal. the U.S.) changed in the late 20th century in regards to courting and social relationships. The old medieval act of male chivalry when a male follows a desired love to her castle or villa was favorable to the woman in most cases during the 1500s, but by today's standards to do that "following her to her home" thing is basically called stalking, deemed emotionally harmful to women (esp. feminists, sexual abuse activists and "P-C ness" adds in the moral panic of "sexual predators") and ruled illegal, thus one should think on how to pursue his object of attraction. + Mike D 26 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology?

"with the help of corrupt mental health professionals"? How often does that happen, really, to be included as a possibility in an encyclopedic article? Sounds paranoid, pun intended! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalking in media and literature

This section is ridiculous. These worthless titles take as much place as the actual prose! Please, trim, or delete, it soon. I would gladly remove it all, but someone would probably revert that. No idea why. And, I seriously mean it. When a newcomer to Wikipedia reads this article, I know what would he think: „What? Is that all what Wiki has to offer? Do they have to resort to such fillers? Is this the point of writing articles?” :/ 83.31.251.186 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I was also tempted to do it myself, but sure that doing so would just spark a revert war. 74.137.111.227 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section is gone. Thanks, The Anome. :) 83.31.236.219 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Scenario? (NOT A FORUM POST)

Ok, so, a scenario here, based on what is included in this article: Say a 13 or 14 year old boy takes a friends cell phone and retrieves the number of his "soul-mate", hence the article, and attempts to call her, but retrieves the number without her consent. Are you saying that this kid is a stalker? Today, this word is over-used and abused, and I think that the article should be edited to reflect this overuse of the word, as I believe that the word should not be taken as seriously in that manner (Sorry if my argument was a little unclear, tried to word it the best that I could). If anyone disagrees with me, I would love to hear your opinions on my user talk page or in response to this on this discussion page. Thanks!

NitrogenTSRH (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello nitrogen. Just adding to your point that I agree with you. The hysterical, histronic siren call of "STALKER!!" is way overused, and can easily ruin a mans reputation. KCM 204.191.239.189 (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing my point. I will try to merge something about this into the article, while keeping the article clean still (a difficult task...), anyone want to help me improve this article? NitrogenTSRH (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added something to this effect at the start of the article and cited a psychology paper that agrees with this. What I actually said was that there was no universally accepted definition and that the difficulties associated with trying to define it are well documented. James500 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When I suggest that stalking might be applied to bodies of persons, see for example Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty which prompted the enactment of the offences of collective harassment and persuasive harassment. James500 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I also have a different scenario here: Would it be considered stalking if a girl friend continuously did suspicious behavior that seemed like she was cheating on you. You then knew where she was hanging out and you watched this house or where she was at to try and help find out if she was. I mean let's say you did this and did find out that she was cheating on you with several different guys. Would that be considered stalking? Would it also be considered illegal?? When all that person is doing is trying to find out information to help him or herself out? Would it be looked upon by most people handled poorly(or extremely weird), what would you people think about this individual that did this? If so, in anyone's opinion how else should this person handle the situation to find some closure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.199.189 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

could we possibly have a section on the abuse of the justice system when people falsly accuse stalking?

This section I found particularly ironic:

"Stalkers may slander or defame the character of their victims which may isolate the victims and give the stalkers more control or a feeling of power.

Stalkers may use manipulative behavior such as bringing legal action against their victims. They may also attempt to diagnose victims with false mental illnesses."

If you flip this around, and change the labels, you get this:

"A woman may slander or defame the character of the man by falsely claiming he is stalking her, which may isolate the victim and give the slanderer more control or a feeling of power.

A woman may also use manipulative behavior such as bringing legal action against the man, such as Ex Parte restraining orders, Exclusive Matrimonial Posession Orders, Peace bonds, simply by lying in court or making a libellous or highly inflated affadavit. The woman may also attempt to diagnose or spread rumours about (untrue) mental illnesses."

You have the classic situation of a person (mostly women, but oviously not ALL women) falsly accusing or branding their ex partner/husband/boyfriend a stalker. Then proceeding to tell everyone that will listen (especially police) what a bad man he is. This is essentially slander and defamation.

I wonder how many 'stalking' cases are actually hysterical spiteful women (the article does say that most 'stalkers' are men, therefore, most 'victims' must be women) getting their own back on a former partner? Would be interesting to find out.

Perhaps a mention on Alberta, Canada's skewed system against men would be good. There is research ( i cant remember where) that says that use (and abuse) of the restraining order system here in ALberta is rampant. A woman only needs to complain to police that she just FEELS afraid of the man, and she can get a restraining order, without even notifying the man, or his counsel having a chance for a rebuttal.

Thats what happened to me. My wife, (soon to be EX wife thank god) had an affair on me. I found out, filed divorce, and a few weeks later got served a restraining order whilst at work. By coincidence of course, her new boyfreind was able to stay at the house now. When you are served an order like that, as soon as you read it, its OVER. You cant go back to the house. Even if you only have the clothes on your back and your car, TOO BAD. You are INSTANTLY HOMELESS at that point.

Maybe a section like this would be more suited in the restraining order section....?

KCM 204.191.239.189 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are telling me that this isn't a forum post? NitrogenTSRH (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added this section

I referenced the abstract of a paper from the British Journal of Psychiatry that I found on google. If anyone has ready access to this paper perhaps they could elaborate. I am not sure if the 'false' claims in question were all fraudulent or whether they included claims that were simply frivolous. James500 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In Brazil

I cannot edit this article. Somebody could add the informations below in it?

Brazil

Stalking, in Brazil, shapes the penal contravention of "perturbation of the tranquillity", with the next description:

"Art. 65. To bother someone or to disturb the tranquillity, for provocation or for reprovable motive:

Penalty – simple prison, of fifteen days to two months, or fine [...] "

In Brazil it is a simple contravention punished with simple prison or fine, it constitutes fact more serious than many crimes, like the threat and the insult. It is certain that, in many hypotheses, these crimes integrate the global action of the pursuit, because the subject does not stop answering for them in contest. Meantime, that stalking since principal fact longed by the author is of bigger seriousness than installments crimes. The fact, for this reason, deserves more attention and consideration of the Brazilian legislator, being turned into criminal autonomous figure and better definite.

PS:. Sorry for my bad english. Probably someone would have to correct many things. Suin (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Law on stalking: innaccurate

This section would probably be more accurately described as 'law on harassment' since most of the offences appear to be described as harassment. I have to concede that I am not sure what it is doing in an article that seems to be predominantly about psychology.

The remark about R v. Constanza (which has oddly been placed in the section on the US) should read ... if the victim suffers actual bodily harm and the act said to be characterised as 'stalking' amounts to common assault... etc. . The remark presently suggests that liability under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 could arise for a trifling or transient injury (which it can't) or in the absence of an assault (which includes battery) (which it can't). James500 (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it neutral to consistly refer throughout this article to the individuals who are being stalked as "victims", since that appears to assert that what is being done is morally wrong or not to be condoned or something similar? You could simply refer to them as "the other person".129.234.4.76 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender studies on stalking - explanation of howto tag

It is the final sentence which appears to be advice. It tells us that we should regard female stalkers in a particular way (emphasis added).James500 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the instructions to this page, re-written that part of the article, and removed the "how-to" tag:

For the safety of the victims, female stalkers should be regarded as potentially as dangerous as any male stalker, in spite of the vast majority of stalking-related violence being committed by males..

Explanation of factual accuracy tag

I think that as it stands this section suggests that the majority of people who are stalked are female.

I am aware of studies that assert that there is no difference between the level of male and female 'victimisation' (I shall use this word until I can think of a more neutral one), but that there is serious under-reporting of male 'victimisation':

e.g. Spitzberg, Nicastro and Cousins, 'Exploring the interactive phenomenon of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion',(1998) 11(1) Communication Reports, pp 33-47

It is suggested therein that men are less inclined to define themselves as stalking victims or are more reluctant to involve the authorities.

I have only heard of this paper from reading a textbook (Emily Finch, Criminalisation of stalking) that quotes it. James500 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that it might be more accurate to say that the majority of reported stalkers are male (emphasis added). James500 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is one of the links password-protected?

The link called "Australian Institute of Criminology stalking articles" appears to point to a password-protected site: http://editors.dmoz.org/editors/editunrev.cgi?site=191326&cat=Society/Crime/Prevention/Stalking , which wouldn't be much use to a lay-person seeking information. Could a better link be found, or maybe a link to the google cache of that page (if one exists)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.7.67 (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Factual information disputed?

I don't know what that is marked as such. All you have to do is visit the pages for the US Dept of Justice and see the information there corroborrates with what's in that section. Sounds to me like some people can't handle the truth. Most stalkers are MEN, and most stalked are WOMEN!

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/stalking/welcome.htm

No, most people accused of stalking are men, and most people claiming to be stalked are women - and the statistics reflect this only. What they don't do is tell us the actual figure of men / women who are stalking people, and unless you're omnipotent you can't tell us either. A bias in the judicial system would certainly skew the data: a woman is far more likely to fear violence from a man giving them unwanted attention than a man receiving unwanted attention from woman. That means a woman is more likely to report an incident of perceived stalking - whether the threat of malice or violence existed or not - than a man. Also, the myriad of laws (such as domestic violence / restraining orders) that dictate a male must be treated as guilty on the accusation of a female until they can prove themselves innocent automatically create a justice system set-up to be abused should a female wish to do so. How much do these things affect the final statistics? Who knows. Once again, you'd have to be omnipotent to know. Ozymandias King of Kings (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the explanation of the factual accuracy tag in the section above? I mentioned a paper and a book that suggested that this information might not be accurate because they thought that there might be a systematic bias in the data used (I think that was gist of it) consisting of what (Finch, I think) described as "under-reporting" by men. I promise you that I am not having a problem "handling" anything - I am only reporting what I have read.

If it upsets you that much, I could just remove the tag. James500 (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and courtship

Maybe we should add a section about the fuzzy line between stalking and courtship? And how many behaviours defined as stalking are considered "romantic" if the girl decides, at some point, that she is interested?

We could possibly reference the twilight phenomenon and other cultural things that display stalkers as romantic heroes. 59.38.32.9 (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It crosses the boundary between romantic pursuit and stalking at the point where the recipient of the courtship attempt expresses his/her wish that it cease (or, beyond a certain point, where most people might reasonably have been expected to express a preference on way or the other, if they do not express a wish that it should continue) and the pursuer fails to stop the behavior. Continuing beyond that point is highly unlikely to persuade them of the merits of their pursuer's case.

What's the twilight phenomenon? All I can find is articles referencing the Twilight books. -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

While I can accept your definition, the page doesn't say anything about unwanted behaviour, "merely" intrusive, the kind of behaviour that the Edward Cullen character engages in in the Twilight book series (that's what I was referring to). He is portrayed and seen (by frighteningly many) as some sort of romantic ideal. Hence my concerns about the fuzzy line. 59.38.32.9 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the article ought to do so: this UK government report defines stalking in terms of "persistent and unwanted attention". However, this language is not used in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which talks about "harassment" rather than "stalking". -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm willing to add a section about the fuzzy line, and how the distinction between courtship and stalking is not clear in certain jurisdictions as per our discussion BUT I have edited before and gotten involved in some terse edit conflicts about some epic trivialities. I'm not going through it again. So I will change it once, but if someone undoes it, I'm out. 59.38.32.9 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stalking as a Pejorative Term

Why is stalking a pejorative term, while harassment is not? Stalking is not a pejorative term. It is a relatively new term used to communicate a relatively new social phenomenon. That is not to say that stalking never occurred in the past, but that it a civil offense which has become so widespread that a handy term had to be coined so that it could be discussed effectively.

---

Secondly, the universality of stalking. I object that stalking must meet standards of universality when in fact it may be culture specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.56.47 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the introduction. Describing stalking as a "controversial perjorative term" in the introduction is both poor encyclopedia style and inappropriate POV commentary. The introduction should be as neutral as possible. Any issues concerning whether the term "stalking" is controversial or perjorative should be addressed elsewhere in the article. As a psychotherapist with some expertise on this subject I sense that this comment may have been written by a stalker. In my experience stalkers almost never accept the term as describing them or their behaviour. Other phrasing in the introduction was also indicative to me of having been possibly written by a stalker. I could be wrong about this but my reading of the introduction set off all sorts of alarm bells about the ways in which stalkers seek to downplay the term. Afterwriting (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

97% / 3% figure

An anon IP added the following statement:

97% of stalkers were males stalking females and 3% were females stalking males and other females. A number of robberies, sexual assault and rape have been the result of this stalking

to a section that cited Rosemary Purcell (2006). "The prevalence and nature of stalking in the Australian community". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help) as a source. I can't see anything that supports this in the abstract of the article visible for free on the web; the rest of the paper is behind a paywall. Can someone with online access to this paper check whether it supports this statement? -- The Anome (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalkers Being Male Citation

There is a claim that stalkers are mostly male. Here is a source. I am not very good at adding citations, so here you go: http://www.stalkingalert.com/questionsanswers.htm

"Although the majority of stalkers are male, there are female stalkers who are just as devious and dangerous." - Rhonda Saunders, J.D., respected as an expert on stalking laws

23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozmicblueskid (talk • contribs)

Animal Kingdom

Dose "Stalking" appear for animals too? or even humans inherited from animals ? --DarckArchon (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gang Stalking

'Gang stalking' is not related to the classical stalking which this page is about. Likewise psychological paranoia is not relevant. Likewise differing legal frameworks are an inherent issue and have no bearing on the fundamental issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsupremacy (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) If 'Gang stakling' is not related to this^&I can confer* Then this term should be removed entirely^ == "Gang stalking is not related to the classical stalking which this page is about. Likewise psychologial paranoia is not relevent." therefore, no one should be permitted to join the keyword "Gang stalking" to the "Stalking" title of this page in order to make thier remarks appear on the search engine - Also All "Psychological Paranoia" "Information 108.39.204.241 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And in fact, the newly added cause stalking article does distinguish cause stalking from classical stalking - observing it is a form of vengeance, or in instances where the group makes itself available for hire (as an investigator asserts happens regularly), a type of terrorism - all backed up by reliable sources. So basically, the controversy over Gang Stalking is due to poorly considered edits from inexperienced editors whose interest in Wikipedia began and ended with this particular topic. Once the Gang Stalking page is restored and redirects to cause stalking, this controversy is over.Jeremystalked _{T C} 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Stalking is the repeated unwanted intrusion of one person into the life of another in a manner that causes anxiety or fear. It concerns individuals, not groups. Sometimes, a stalker may recruit others as agents or proxies to help them in the stalking campaign. However, it is the originating individual that is the stalker. This is very important, because the assessment of risk in stalking is dependent on the underlying motivation, and this belongs to the person initiating the campaign. There is no such thing as group stalking. Group activities of this type are known as bullying or conspiracy. FRGMelbourne (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC) )

PLEASE REMOVE ALL REFERENCE TO "GANG STALKING" AS IT IS BEING USED TO HARM PPL ASKED TO HELP{ Sympathetic *understanding samaritans and other good people are taken to slanderous DIS-INF person who stands in

The content is reliably sourced, so belongs in Wikipedia. How is the provision of such reliable content that doesn't mention any person slanderous? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I

- He is actually guarding the search engine results

"Gang stalking"

I've removed this whole section: it's completely unreferenced, and of dubious notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking for more information. -- The Anome (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anome: Only gangstalkers don't want people to know what they do. Gangs are secretive societies. There are plenty of references regarding gangstalking but you don't want anyone to read them? Gangstalkers want people to believe they are invisible and do not commit any crimes. They are not invisible and they are real and they are criminals. What gang do you belong to?

Note: the above comment is by User:Gustawaldorf, who signed it as User:Skizit (diff), and then deleted that signature(diff). Make of this what you will. -- The Anome (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To User:Gustawaldorf: firstly, I don't belong to any gang, nor do I have any interest in stalking anyone. Secondly, this material keeps on being deleted because it lacks verifiable supporting references to reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia's content policies. Can you provide any verifiable references to reliable sources which can back up what you are saying? If so, we can make progress. If not, not.-- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just came here because a friend sent me a Youtube video wherein some woman thought that every car or person on a bike that went by was part of a grand network of people who were watching / stalking her. Then I saw that there were a bunch of YouTube videos like this -- to me, it just looked like every day random traffic with paranoid narration. These (gang-stalked) people claim that there are hundreds of people involved in their surveillance. It strikes me that maybe this is a type of mental illness like Reduplicative paramnesia, Syndrome of subjective doubles, or Capgras delusion, especially as the only person who has written a book on the subject is a Florida lawyer who, judging by his website that takes Mastercard, seems to be an ambulance-chasing type. So is this a real thing? Or are these people mentally ill? Should the subject be mentioned in the article? (It seems like it should be at least mentioned with the caveat that it might be a misperception caused by a mental illness.) I am always fascinated by stuff like this (See: Morgellons Disease). Saudade7 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Saudade7, the reason targeted individuals see things that you don't is due to classical psychological conditioning. Over time, the target is sensitized to unusual combinations of shapes, colors, noises, etc., until events incorporating those stimuli can be paraded in front of the target in public. An example would be a woman who was gang raped, and a sock was stuffed in her mouth during the act to silence her. Afterwards, her rapists follow her everywhere and leave socks her in path as a way of saying, "Don't tell anyone." After a while, the mere sight of a sock lying in the road will be enough to cause the woman to relive her trauma. To you, it's just a sock. To her, it's a reminder of her rape, it's a reminder that her rapists are following her everywhere, and it's a threat not to tell anyone. -Anon user in Ohio, 18:43, 14 September 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.253.18 (talk)

Saudade7, I wanted to add that there are several books on gang stalking or personal accounts of gang stalking. Drop by Amazon and check out "1996" by Gloria Naylor, "My life changed forever" by Elizabeth Sutter (pseudonym), "Hidden Evil" by Mark Rich, "Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace", and of course "Cause Stalking", the book you apparently refer to. There are probably others. 24.209.253.18 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Anon in Ohio

Actually, this website mentions "gang stalking" (I am not vouching for its accuracy): http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/Stalking.html

James500 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the source above provide any reference to multiple reliable sources that discuss "gang stalking"? If we have that, we could certainly create at least a subsection of this article about it, or even recreate the gang stalking article. At the moment, the article title "gang stalking" is still protected against re-creation, and discussion of the topic has been repeatedly removed from articles, because of the lack of the multiple references to reliable sources that are required to satisfy Wikipedia verifiability and notability requirements.

Even there appear to be thousands of web pages that refer to this topic, websites that don't meet the WP:RS criteria don't count towards this, no matter how many there are. Can anyone provide the necessary cites to substantial coverage in reliable sources? -- The Anome (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the website says, in its entirety:

• Gang stalking: stalking by multiple perpetrators, or one perpetrator is able to convince others to assist in his/her stalking and harassing activities against a victim

That doesn't go much beyond what could be surmised from the name. The website is boderline as a reliable source, but even if we used it there's not much we could add on the topic.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And, regardless of the WP:RS status of its source, it's only a mention in passing that supplies no information that could not be deduced from the name. What's needed is multiple articles that are primarily about this specific topic from independent reliable sources. -- The Anome (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And, after searching yet again, I've now found the necessary two RS; this NYT article which appears to discuss this topic primarily in terms of being a delusory ststem, and this Washington Post article which presents both sides of the argument. Neither article appears to me to present any evidence for this being an actual real phenomenon. Nevertheless, I'm now going to unprotect gang stalking. -- The Anome (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello The Anome, You wrote: "Neither article appears to me to present any evidence..." That may be true, however in the Washington Post article by Sharon Weinberger, Harlan Girard complained of testicular aching. This is mentioned as an effect in "Acoustic Weapons: A Prospective Assesment", by Juergen Altmann on page 234. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2582436/Acoustic-Weapons Others have described attacks that match possibility according to Altmann, such as "room resonances" around 30 Hz and other effects. Also, Eleanor White describes people hearing birds wherever they go even though no birds are present. See page 41, "acoustic spotlight". http://www.stopos.info/osatv.pdf

She says it comes from something like this Audio Spotlight (total run time 1:31): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwAeb3RBZ1Y

Bart King talks about "tongue clicking" to drive prisoners crazy in Russia. http://www.amazon.com/Big-Book-Spy-Stuff/dp/1423618742

Compare this to "pen clicking" in _Cause Stalking_ by David Lawson. That's enough for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YDKDY (talk • contribs) 01:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are those sources sufficient reason to have an article on the topic, or would it be better to include a section in this article instead? FYI, the reason that the Gang stalking title was salted was that there was a single eitor who was obsessed with the idea and kept recreating poor-quality content about it.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The cited sources give me the impression that the "gang stalking" phenomenon seems to be more a matter of people reporting that they believe they're the subjects of a huge conspiracy and on the receiving end of things like psychotronic weapons, than the relatively mundane subject of this article, and it probably deserves to be discussed separately. -- The Anome (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If it turns out to be impossible to create an article on the topic that meets Wikipedia's article policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:ATT, we can always go back to the previous state of affairs. -- The Anome (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Make the edit.   Will Beback  talk  10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gang stalking, redux

The following links to D.O.J. documents proving the existence of multiple stalking groups consisting of between "3" and "50" stalkers acting as a "team or group" http://www.multistalkervictims.org/svuslabellafoia.pdf

The following is a FOX News syndicted article of a police Lieutenant from Santa, Cruz, California discussing gang stalking http://www.kionrightnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13931348 The related press interview of the Santa Cruz Lieutenant talking about gang stalking and social media http://www.kionrightnow.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=5515056&h1=What%20Is%20Gang%20Stalking%3F&vt1=v&at1=undefined&d1=125134&LaunchPageAdTag=News&undefined&activePane=info&rnd=98938796 I've found a "reliable source" on gang stalking, The Hidden Evil (www.thehiddenevil.com), the author of which has done a lot of research and cites his numerous sources. But when I try to use it as a reference, my edits get undone with the justification that it's a "fringe theory". I hate to tell you guys, but as a victim of this stuff that is definitely happening, it almost looks like you're in on it when you shrug off well-researched sites as part of a "fringe". Isn't everything "fringe" until it becomes popular? Why does Wikipedia not delete the dozens of articles on obscure Anime titles, are they not "fringe" as well? (Just as an example, I'm actually a fan of some of these obscure titles.)

My point is, that The Hidden Evil is at least as well researched as many sites that you reference as "reliable" or "quality" sources in this and other articles. It seems like the primary criterion for a site to be reference quality is that it doesn't offend your sensibilities.

I would like to know what you would consider a reference-quality source for gang stalking, given that governments want to pretend that gang stalking doesn't exist, and that all mainstream media sources are in the pocket of their host governments.

And one more thing. A person above compared the victims' claims to symptoms of mental illness. Wasn't homosexuality considered a mental illness in the United States until suddenly, it wasn't (removed from the DSM)? Wasn't the criterion for homosexuality being removed from the DSM simply that homosexuals had accumulated sufficient political power in the US that the mainstream power structures had to accomodate them? Isn't it possible that you are committing the same offense by categorically excluding gang stalking victims' claims from the realm of suitable topics for discussion, simply because they aren't politically organized enough yet?

(signed, Anon user in Ohio) 18:31, 14 September 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.253.18 (talk)

Please see WP:RS for our policy on what counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, at best use that site as a source for real, mainstream reliable sources which could then be integrated into the page. Citing a conspiracy will not help your case, per WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this page's discussion history, it seems that a separate page on Gang Stalking might be apropos. I see it was deleted by The Anome in 2008, but since then (as mentioned in this discussion) there are two RS's that support "Gang Stalking", not necessarily as a real phenomenon, but as something that is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as long as the concerns over possible delusional behavior are addressed. Am I correct in thinking I can put up a page on Gang Stalking now (in September 2009) and it won't be summarily deleted as long as I try to maintain a NPOV? 24.209.253.18 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Anon in Ohio

I've split off this into a new section because the previous discussion was some months old.

If you can find reliable sources that document it, then it would be suitable as either a separate page (assuming it is sufficiently lengthy) or a section of this one. Note that this is utterly dependent on the sources, and based on a google books search [1] it looks like they don't exist. The two books that deal with it in a somewhat substantial manner (Coherent Madness and Hidden Evil) both appear to be self-published and therefore unsuitable. I would suggest that you get an account, and draft a possible page in your own sub-page space and present it for review before moving it to mainspace. Otherwise it's almost certainly going to be deleted in short order. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would offer gang/organized/cause stalking is clearly a separate issue. David Lawson's book on cause stalking was not self published IIRC, and might be a good basis to start. The Hidden Evil is an excellent work but I'm afraid contains so much rank speculation it would put the topic as CT material out of the box. NWO, Bilderberg, CFR, true or not doesn't fly at a reference work like wiki, and in fact only reinforces the belief it's delusions of grandeur- how else does one look at a group of people stalking him and conclude it's a result of a global scheme of one world government takeover? (and Mark Rich IMO is one of the more credible) It's going to be a real minefield as many of you indicate because there are people who are looking for validation on their paranoid delusions and they will find it online in support groups- the hard part is that it's easy to dismiss people who appear to be oddballs, as not having credible testimony, and that is a logical fallacy. It's community mobbing which is a concept as old as human history, the group needs a scapegoat to exercize its own evils and this is believed to be a movement of eugenics or social cleansing of "undesirables". In that light you shouldn't expect to find research scientists or PHd's coming forward complaining of being a victim- so perhaps keep an open mind here that the standard rule of thought may be wrong. I don't think anyone is qualified to do a diagnosis of mental health anonymously but that's what people are doing, wouldn't you hate to find out you were wrong and assisted the crime? Batvette (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that "psychotronic weapons" could be simply defined as follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_weapon this third link is to an FBI program where Gang stalking was used to destroy the lives of dissidents (as determined by an unknown judge or quantity of people)and could be a possible beginning for Gang Stalking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO It is considered enough of a viable technology to support the claims of its use on common citizens. It has been declared unethical by the UN. HERF weaponry has existid since we have had microwave magnetrons how can we ignore these facts? Just because we want to believe our fellow man would not use such a thing is belied by the fact that we turned it into a military weapon and if the pages exist that substantiate that the proposed weaponry of gang stalking does that not led a thread of credibility to the claims? I request that all these above listed pages be removed from the wiki because well, I am obviously paranoid because none of this exists according to this page here. Unless you would like to admit that the pages listed above are realistic in their claims? Sincerely with respect, 68.70.225.35 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wide sweeping changes

I am not too involved with this article or subject to know whether these changes are on the whole good or not, but I should just note the changes were fairly wide sweeping, esp wrt to the lede: [2]. For your reference. –xeno^talk 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The quality of this article has significantly diminished since I last looked at it and I remain concerned at the way parts of the the article reads. Too many comments are unreferenced and, as such, constitute original research and personal opinion. And many comments are poorly expressed or don't even make much sense. I have been criticised in the past for questioning the motives behind some edits but my suspicions remain. Afterwriting (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the earlier version. –xeno^talk 15:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I also like to add ,when the victim belive,everybody is harras him its becuase he is mind controlled by someone (person with crime mind )send bad feelings,emotions,thoughts ,and text his brain,to make the person belive in all of that.its like the victim has 100% of control on his brain and body,and the criminal mind who works on him play with his brain ,anger,feelings,send thoughts,fears,vedios,images ,pain to freak the victim. its can be applied and work on the victim wether he got tortured or not. but becuase the criminal like the job so he beat his victim around the clock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.165.193 (talk • contribs)

I confer. Not helping Victims, who are beaten around clock, is sick. and demented. stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.79.180 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• PMID 9653530
• PMID 16382848
• PMID 17119890
• PMID 10641939

Criminal behaviour isn't really my thing, but if anyone's interested in expanding this article a little, the reviews above might be of some help. MichaelExe (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Persecutory delusions

I've added some material about persecutory delusions as a cause of false reports of stalking, based on Sheridan and Blauu's figures of 11.5% false reports, of which 70% (ie ~8.05% of all reports) were based on delusions. The exact quote this is based on is:

Very little research exists on false reports of stalking. The current work analyzed questionnaires completed by 357 respondents who presented as stalking victims at antistalking charities in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. After eight uncertain cases were excluded, the false reporting rate was judged to be 11.5%, with the majority of false victims suffering delusions (70%). [3]

That is not intended to imply that most self-reported victims of stalking are delusional; the 70% figure is only a fraction of false reports. Sheridan and Blauu's figures clearly imply that the vast majority of people that believe they are the victims of stalking (87.5%) are actually real stalking victims, with only ~8% of people reporting that they are the victims of stalking being delusional, and the remaining ~3.5% having some other motivation for their report. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's problematic when the page is ambiguously straddled between being about stalking as criminal behaviour by the perpetrators and a psychological issue by alleged victims. It really can't be both as it becomes offensive to victims and even encourages the perpetrators' behaviour by believing what they are doing may be okay because their target may deserve it or "hey, they're crazy anyway".

My comment may be philosophically vague but also warning of treading into dangerous territory. You don't want a stalker who is escalating his activities to come here and get the message his actions are anything but criminal in nature, and certainly no fault of their victim. Batvette (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See the last sentence of my comment above. -- The Anome (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GangStalking 3.0

So am I to assume the door is open for recreating the page so we don't muddy up this one? I'm an editor in good standing but will seek collaboration with at least one person with better skills than I (who will appear to be a new editor) but I wanted to make sure there's a green light. Batvette (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous article on gang stalking was deleted because its content did not meet Wikipedia's policies; there is nothing to make the subject itself taboo. However, you will need to back up your new article with evidence from multiple reliable verifiable sources and adhere strictly to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.

Since the previous versions of that article were deleted for problems with these basic policies, I suggest you should take more than usual care to avoid a repetition of those previous deletions. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking for the discussion that resulted in the previous deletion, so you can see what you might want to avoid. You might also want to take a look at the discussion elsewhere on this page reagrding this.

In particular, you should provide evidence that the subject of the article actually exists as a real-world phenomenon, distinct from the common phenomenon of stalking by more than one person, and also distinct from the phenomenon of persecutory delusions, and that the term "gang stalking" is used for that phenomenon by the reliable verifiable sources you are using to support the article as factual. If not, it would probably better dealt with (if real) within the pre-existing section in the stalking article that covers multiple-person stalking (see Stalking#Stalking by groups), or (if delusional) in the persecutory delusion article. -- The Anome (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been tossing this around in my head and have a few references that will meet wiki standards but one brings something you stated into question, a published first hand account by David Lawson which was called "Terrorist Stalking in America" in 2001 (ISBN: 0-9703092-0-1). It was subsequently republished as "Cause Stalking"[4]. There are IIRC at least a half dozen names for the same activity,(it seems organized stalking is now the most widely used) and even a page here at wikipedia called workplace mobbing, which describes a nearly identical set of tactics in the workplace for similar reasons.

So how do I approach this, should we make the page organized stalking and gangstalking's page leads to it?

Another thing I'll mention right off (which may indicate good faith on my part for NPOV) is that I think we can have a section in it presenting the persecutory delusions aspect. As I've been poring over sources there is no doubt many reports are just that and it should be mentioned.

I'll leave it at this for a week or two and if anyone has a reference that meets wiki standards please list it and link to it for inclusion. Batvette (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In my article about the Gang Stalking controversy in Wikipedia ( http://areyoutargeted.com/2009/12/27/invading-wiki-pedia/ ), I observe that there may be systemic bias in how Wikipedians filter topics. For example, Wikipedia has articles on nonexistent phenomena like Reptilians and Perpetual Motion Machines. It seems like the only criteria for inclusion is that these topics are considered important by many people. My advice to anyone trying to talk about this subject on Wikipedia is to focus on the controversy surrounding Gang Stalking, for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.37.65 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute, Global view

what is the neutrality dispute about? Also, it seems to have a global view mentioning at least 9 different nations, more than most wiki articles.67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand what the neutrality dispute is about and it seems there is no disscussion going on about it perhaps it should be removed. i cant see anything wrong with it ? can anyone who can say now please? Delighted eyes (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the issue is with the part "As with sexual harassment law, it is very easy for false claims to be made or at least for the law to be broken as the law is so ill-defined, whether or not someone has been harassed has no objective definition and claims can be made arbitrarily. Compensation claims add another reason for false and malicious claims.", especially the last sentence and the bolded part. I suggest that either a source for this be provided or that part be deleted. I'd also like to point out that the tag is one year old this month, so whatever debate may have run it's course or ended in a stalemate. Hertzyscowicz (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Psychology or Crime

this article approaches stalking as a psychological condition. perhaps it should focus more on that it is a crime, and the history of it such as famous incidents of it. I am not saying we remove the psychological parts, just supplement them. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable sources supporting "Gang stalking"; "cause stalking" as a notable article

Currently we have one reliable source, David Lawson's book on Cause Stalking, that mentions gang stalking / organized stalking by name and offers definitions.

Seeing as how Wikipedia considers cartoon characters and obscure science fiction titles "notable", would Lawson's book be notable? I'd think the answer is yes, but I'd like to be sure before I create the article.

As for an article on Gang Stalking / Organized Stalking - would an interview with an authority (such as a police department) acknowledging gang stalking / organized stalking (as defined by Lawson) as a problem be acceptable as a second source? Several interviews? How about this interview with a Police Lieutenant from Santa Cruz, California: http://www.kionrightnow.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=5515056&h1=What%20Is%20Gang%20Stalking%3F&vt1=v&at1=undefined&d1=125134&LaunchPageAdTag=News&undefined&activePane=info&rnd=98938796 Jeremystalked (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2006 the first newspaper article about gang stalking appeared in Peterborough This Week on April 19. It was copied to a website that disappeared, but you find a copy of the original page here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060616044027/http://www.catchcanada.org/ and with missing images here: http://web.archive.org/web/20070822220838/www.catchcanada.org/watching.htm The article was then copied here: http://www.multistalkervictims.org/catchcanada/watching.htm and following pages. The name of the victim is kept secret, but there has been an official investigation of an allegation of gang stalking. There was a follow-up article on May 19, 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gastacara (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Community Notifications "Gang stalking"; "Community Mobbing" Proof

I would debate that the David Lawson book is not a reliable source and is disinformation.

The most compelling evidence to date now suggest that community notifications are the source of the gang stalking that many have been complaining about. If you are going to update the Gang Stalking page. I request that information from Gang Stalking World be included, as there are numerous sources quoted. The strongest evidence that fits what targets are complaining about are these community notifications lists that innocent people are being placed on.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.232.239 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with Lawson's book, and it may be out of date. That said, community notifications don't explain the kinds of sophisticated psychological warfare campaigns that many (most?) targets experience. The (mis)uses of community resources in organized/gang stalking campaigns go well beyond simple blacklisting. The reason so many targets like Lawson's book is because it describes the kinds of experiences they've gone through. Community notifications don't go far enough in explaining this phenomenon.

Anyway, Lawson's book was picked up by a publisher (not a vanity press) who was willing to risk getting sued publishing what Lawson had to say. That's why it's considered a WP:RS. Wikipedians will cheerfully include any disinformation as long as it's a WP:RS. Likewise, they will shun the truth if nobody's willing to risk getting sued over it. When you think about the corruption that organized stalking supports, you'll have to realize that the truth will probably not come out until the system is poised for radical change.

I think the divide between what an increasing number of people know to be true, and what trusted institutions are willing to talk about, will help to discredit the very notion of media reliability as we currently understand it. If that happens, we'll be looking at a whole new game to which Wikipedia (in its current form) will not be invited.Jeremystalked (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think GSW understands Wiki's criteria for references here. I also recall the introduction of the concept of these "community lists" being a basis for gangstalking, and the case of a woman in the UK being placed on a list and suing successfully over it being presented as evidence. However reviewing the link provided revealed nothing whatsoever to do with gangstalking. Eleanor White (not to name drop, but...) also disagreed with you on this. These lists are available for public view and anyone who thinks they are on it but innocent can petition the court to have it removed. So I'm not seeing what the basis is for your assertions here?

As for Lawson's book being "disinfo", aren't you really saying you disagree with some things he makes assumptions upon? Or are you saying he wrote and published the book with the intent to mislead TI's with disinformation? That's a serious charge and one could easily go to GSW and find things they disagree with, this does not make GSW a site intended for disinfo purposes. Batvette (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Politics behind stalking laws and civil liberties

I've marked the entire section "Politics behind stalking laws and civil liberties" with {{NPOV-section}}. I'd greatly appreciate it if other editors could improve it to provide a balanced, NPOV treatment of these issues. -- The Anome (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would contend that the whole page is unbalanced without this section - and I didnt think Wikepedia was about arbitary censorship. As we have had both a 'stalking industry', as well as a 'sexual harassment industry' since the 1980's it is time that the previously unquestioned and often taxpayer funded propaganda was more balanced - See Patai's book on Heterophobia, Sexual Harassment and the Future of Femimism, and the referenced CATO article on Feminist Jurispudence in full, then there will be some balance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtalkstruth1 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 August 2010

Please note that I have not simply removed the section, as I easily could have done if my intention had been to suppress your opinion. Instead, I have merely added a request that it be fact-checked, and information from other competing perspectives added, per Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- The Anome (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I would be pleased to see some comments and discussion on the facts which I have given reference to. Both Patai's book referred to and the CATO article have many references to facts within them - such facts are rarely considered in the media due to arbitray censorship. let's hope Wikipedia does not go the same way. By the way - in the UK, the so called stalking law, that is the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, was brought on the back of one or two high profile cases of the media portrayed stranger deranged stalker - when the Act was discussed in Parliament before it became law it was anticipated that there would only be a minor number of convictions each year as they were considered rare (and indeed are rare). But due to the ill-defind law, and for other resaons I have given, the facts are that there are now thousands of convictions a year, perhaps tens of thousands. And as the Home Office article also referred to, only a monority of these cases are anything to do with the typical media portrayal of stalking and the so called stalking law is instead being used mainly in cases of domestic and neighborhood disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtalkstruth1 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that your contribution meets Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, and reports the opinions of others as verifiable from reliable sources, I'm perfectly happy for it to stay there. I worry that some of your wording might be construed to be non-neutral, and may have elements of editorializing or original research, but that is in any case likely to be toned down by later editors, or balanced with the reporting of opposing opinions, as part of the general process of Wikipedia editing. -- The Anome (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything in that section is appropriate content for Wikipedia. It's basically just an anti-feminist rant against stalking laws. It's original research and very POV. The facts that are cited are synthesized to advance a point of view and 2 of the 4 cited references aren't even reliable sources. If someone wants to create a section on the history of how stalking laws developed, that would be fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place for editorializing. Kaldari (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at what was deleted and agree. There certainly is WP:RS info on this topic that could be included in an NPOV way, but that wasn't it, by a long shot. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stalker Types

I was pretty offended by this page which appears to express a distinction between legal and psychological definitions of stalking.

'Stalking' is actions laced with malice used to damage a targetted victim.

The issue is that there needs to be a global interpretation that does not presume that legal facet of reality is seperate from the psychological one. Actually the psychological issues associated with stalking are secondary to the offence and I don't understand how you can come up with a psychological interpretation of a criminal offense.

A person who needs an intimate companion is not a stalker - that is a very offensive and wrong statement in this page. Whoever came up with that discription is a complete moron. The world has a vast population and the majority of its members are either participating in or seeking an intimate relationship with someone. Seeking a sexual partner is not a crime and is not stalking.

As I have defined and had my work vandalised on this page that stalkers are people who conduct others with distinct malice and do so with intent to cause harm or damage others.

Psychological issues associated with stalking do not correspond to sexuality or intimacy issues. A genuine victim will have issues dealing with an experience and likely develop a characteristic disorder or condition as a result. With respect to the perpetrator the element of malice in the conduct suggests criminal motivations and this leads to the suggestion of the devinant nature of stalking - which can be characterised from typical and normal behaviour and conduct by the element of malice that is directed upon the victims. Psychological explanations for stalking can be racism, sexism, and phenomena - an innocent expression of admiration towards another person is not stalking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100to1 100-11 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing semi-protected

I've returned this article to semi-protected for six months, so IP editors will need to create an account before editing it. Let's see if this helps. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

i personally think that you should have to have an account to edit any page you did the right thing in my opinion Delighted eyes (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Two more "gang stalking" coatracks at AfD

In the interests of documenting the ongoing POV-pushing attempts by this community, please note the following AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Controversy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Lawsuit

This community is apparently fixated on gaining credibility for their alleged shared persecution by documenting it on WP, but I have yet to see any Reliable Sources whatsoever substantiating their claims. Attempts at sourcing thus far include a notarised affidavit by a claimed former FBI officer who claims to have carried out such targeting, some news clips from local Fox affiliates interviewing people who claim to be gang-stalked (with no substantiating of the veracity of the claims) and a thus-far unsuccessful legal case of someone alleging the government is monitoring them. The only decent cite is an NYT article Sharing Their Demons (November 13 2008) discussing whether it's a psychosis, "shared belief system" or what, but again not even slightly implying that thousands of people are being targeted by shadowy figures.

At this point, I could see adding a section here noting that many people claim to be gang-stalked, and include the NYT cite and any other coverage about how their online community has become a self-supporting system of arguable "shared delusion". But in the meantime we're just AfDing these WP:Coatrack articles as being OR, synthesis, and simply not substantiated by any reliable sources, even when such sources are claimed. I've glanced at a few links to their forums, and there seems to be some organising among them over the years to attempt to force their POV into WP, so at this point gang stalking coverage at all sends up some WP:Red flags. Unfortunately, deleting conspiracy theories just makes us "part of the problem" in their eyes, but I don't see much other way around it except deletion, and if necessary IP blocks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We already have the section that you suggest citing the NYT source and another from The Washington Post. As a sufferer from chronic mental illness myself I would strongly encourage those who believe in this stuff to seek medical help, but I very much doubt that they will take my advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be noted that if the former FBI agent cited above by Matthew is the late Ted Gunderson, his affidavit actually makes no claims of his own participation in any such crimes. The affidavit he furnished seemed to be an extension of his efforts to promote various conspiracy theories including but not limited to a nationwide Satanic Cult organization which allegedly financed its "gang stalking" activities by kidnapping up to 2000 children per day and auctioning them off at private auctions. Gunderson made a number of claims in that affidavit, none of which he supported with references or evidence. Gunderson has been associated with or personally promoted virtually every conspiracy theory out there, including speaking to groups of people outside Area 51 about aliens.Batvette (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

References to FOIA material

I see that part of the article now cites references to FOIA material, giving links to Wikimedia Commons pages as the source cite. Although the cited material does not look unreasonable, unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether a document on Commons is actually authentic. Is it possible to add cites to the original source of the material, in some way that can be publicly verified? -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This purported material has never been published. Therefore, in accordance with WP:V, I have removed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Back in July of 2011, when I added the FOIA material, I was unaware of the talk page. When "The Anome" appropriately asked for a more complete citation (via my personal talk page (as well as here), I responded on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Anome&diff=438024526&oldid=437873718 (scroll to bottom of page). (Our brief exchange was as follows:

Hello! I see you've added a reference to some FOIA material to the Stalking article, giving links to Wikimedia Commons pages as the source cite. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether a document on Commons is actually authentic: could you please add cites to the original source of the material, in some way that can be publicly verified? -- The Anome (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for requesting a more complete citation. Per your request, "original source" information has been added. Please advise. Thank you. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)  ) 

The citation "can be publicly verified." The FOIA number is 10-000169, as was properly noted. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that the following information has been removed: " Official Department of Justice documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that, of the 13% of victim reports of 3 or more stalkers "acting in concert", 41% of subjects in these cases reported that they were the target of teams or groups of stalkers working together." The information was obtained from the DOJ via a FOIA request (#10-000169), as noted above, and builds on the data supplied in the report itself. It should be retained, IMO. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation clarification: Office of Justice Programs, F.O.I.A. No. 10-000169, Source: Office of the General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/about/foia/foia.htm (FOIA Contact is Dorothy Lee; 810 7th St., NW, Room 5400, Washington, DC 20531; 202-307-0790; E-mail: FOIAOJP@usdoj.gov. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How many times has this already gone through the process here and been soundly rejected by consensus and RFC polling which you perverted through sock puppetry and had it pointed out what constitutes a Reliable Source? After all that you're still here pushing this? The problem is the "FOIA documents" are being used to try and emphasize a detail in the findings of that DOJ survey to inject your thinly veiled Conspiracy theory into the article. You are clearly trying to push the same POV agenda into this article that has been introduced repeatedly by vandals and others trying to validate their irrational delusions. You and I can disagree all we like on this but the matter is getting old- there's been actions on the issue of this FOIA document as held by a private citizen before and other editors have spoken.

It is NOT a reliable source by wiki policy and the content of it is sufficiently covered by the article already. Batvette (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Intimacy seekers

Intimacy seekers seek to establish an intimate, loving relationship with their victim. To many of them the victim is a long-sought-after soul mate, and they were 'meant' to be together. Pleas Remove this from the type of stalkers category. Intimacy seekers are not stalkers. There is no valid reference to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpnuke (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That would appear to be a rationalization for the classic obsessed stalker rather than some innocent as you imply. Please provide a reference to substantiate your assertion. Acroterion (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Intimacy seekers" links to obsessive love which mentions sexuality but your description of this type of stalker could describe a mother who stalks her estranged son. In your response you used what looks like bias. Look at your response this way. That would appear to be a rationalization for [insert something debatable ethical or unethical here] rather than someone who is innocent as you imply. You are setting up a victim and predator relationship. What happens if the victim predator relationship is reversed. Take for instant a black widow. Where the woman forms an Intimacy seeker from a susceptible victim in order to make the man unattractive to her friends. Stalkers can be made. I think I could make one ;). The black widow is always the victim. I don't need a source for what I said unless you count common sense. In addition sources can be biased too if you didn't know. (talk

You need appropriate reliable sources per policy. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What precisely is the difference between "Intimacy seekers" and "Incompetent suitors"? DanBishop (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

slang term

this article needs to remeber that 'stalking' is not the name of a thing it is the slang name. most of this article should simply be under harrassment. there is no official thing of stalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delighted eyes (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not slang; it's merely not a legal technical term. M-W, for example, does not flag it as slang: [5]. TJRC (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That means its slang. The real name of it is harrassment. This article normally even states that it is a term coined by tabloids. Delighted eyes (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's considered slang in the UK, it's certainly not slang in North America. The US Department of Justice uses it extensively: [6], and the term has been enshrined into law. Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Slang? You must be joking! It's a perfectly standard word, and it appears (e.g.) in the titles of several academic textbooks - such as this one SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

slang appears in many books. Is it in a dictionary if it is i will bow to your american euphanisums.but the real term is harrassment. There is no law against stalking.They all state harrassment.there seems not much point for the term to me other than a person who harrasses someone - me have no other term for than an offender or a stalker. the same as a person who carries out burglerys-a burgler, a shop lifter, a rapist. carries out harrassment - a stalker. although i also like to call them a cyco it has not entered common tabloid language.Delighted eyes (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalking is a perfectly respectable academic word, and by no means just in America. It has been in use since at least the seventeenth century (see Mullen et al.). Some modern uses of it were introduced to wider attention by the tabloid media, but it is not slang. Before this unwarranted description is reintroduced to the article, please tell me which dictionary describes it as slang. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The referenced definition Delighted eyes had deleted is to a fairly extensive review article in a major journal in the field. It uses the word "stalking" in the title and although it does document that the meaning is hard to nail down (I can't comprehend De's summary and misreading of it unless (per his later re-removal he only read the abstract paragraph)--see my later change for a direct quote!):

"Given that stalking may often constitute no more than the targeted repetition of ostensibly ordinary or routine behavior, stalking is inher- ently difficult to define" — Sheridan, L. P.; Blaauw, E. (2004). "Characteristics of False Stalking Reports". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 31: 55. doi:10.1177/0093854803259235. at middle of page 56)

it clearly supports that this word is in academic use (per the article itself and its cited refs' titles) and also in reference to parts of Europe as well (where some of the underlying studies were performed). DMacks (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is also used in the title of an Australian law ("CRIMINAL CODE (STALKING) AMENDMENT ACT 1999—Act No. 18 of 1999"). DMacks (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

California Penal Code § 646.9 defines the crime of "Stalking": Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking...

A nice reference that spends a few pages describing the evolution of the term from the original hunting use, through the media-originated neologistic use, to the present day accepted use (including the Australian use referred to by DMacks, above) is Mullen, Paul E.; Pathé, Michele (2002). "Stalking". Crime and Justice. 29. University of Chicago Press: 273–318. TJRC (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

US DOJ report on Stalking Victimization in the US/ implied to indicate "gang stalking"

The section on stalking by groups of people contains a legitimate reference US DOJ stalking victimization report which details some polling data used to document stalking cases. A line has been inserted in this section which implies this confirms these cases amount to "gang stalking" however upon deeper analysis this is clearly not the case. First off the original question pamphlet respondents filled out contained a question after the respondent indicates 3 or more stalkers were involved- this question asked whether these three or more were known to be a fraternity, sorority, a club, co-workers, etc. Well an affirmative to any of those is contrary to the described phenomenon of "gang stalking" and mysteriously while the question was asked the figures for answers never appeared in the results of the poll. Whatever the figure was those respondents would have to not count in a projection of this different activity. Furthermore this different activity's description was never the qualifier which filtered the respondents who answered the poll in the first place. All the respondents of this poll were filtered with the qualification that they described having been victims of traditional stalking, as legally defined by US penal code. What has been described by some vague description by consensus as "gang stalking" is currently not a crime at all, and only resembles traditional stalking in a scant few claimed cases and even then only a small part of the description of what they experience. So in essence had any of these respondents described in the filter process having been the victim of "gang stalking" as can be found in various internet sources, it is virtually impossible that they would have then been directed or qualified to fill out this poll about traditional stalking crimes.

So I think it should be established that "stalking by groups of people" or being "stalked by multiple persons" and this report which documents these stats, should be distinct and separate from attempts to associate "gang stalking" with it. The report being in the article is fine. The line inserted implying the report lends credibility to its own claim, is not substantiated. Anyone seeking to introduce "gang stalking" to this article, and this does not seek to encourage nor discourage it, should be advised of this erroneous reference as it serves to discredit someone claiming it establishes precedence when upon the most precursory review of its methodology, shows nothing of the sort. I'll try and figure out a way to move or delete that troublesome line that works for all, without losing good content.Batvette (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I waited several weeks and deleted the reference, just to have an unregistered user revert it. If he/she would like to discuss their rationale in this revert I'm all open for discussion on the matter. (see the bolded part above for the problem with it appearing in that section) Simply reverting and avoiding the discussion on the talk page which was mentioned in the edit summary does not suggest a willingness to work within the wiki system. Batvette (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User Batvette is making a false distinction between "stalking by groups" and "gang stalking". Gang stalking is simply a different terminology for stalking by groups. The Stalking Report indicates substantial group stalking in America. The FOIA documents referenced in the section on Stalking by Groups indicate 185,050 cases of "group stalking" a.k.a. "gang stalking", i.e., stalking by teams or groups acting in concert. These same FOIA documents enumerate the 185,050 cases into cases of between "3" to "50" stalkers, listing a total for each category of between "3" and "50" stalkers. The "gang stalking" news stories are in fact news stories of stalking by groups. These two stories are both mainstream FOX-syndicated T.V. news stories. Gang stalking by groups of stalkers is affirmed by an active duty police lieutenant from Santa Cruz P.D. in the first story. The second story is an investigative journalist piece confirming multiple, open police investigations of multiple felony crimes in San Antonio related to gang stalking by groups of stalkers. Bold text

This material clearly should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceFrog71 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the major problem here is that the term "gang stalking" is commonly associated with self-reported accounts of stalking that contain elements that many find hard to believe -- vast conspiracies, mind-rays, and so forth -- and seem generally resistant to corroboration by uninterested parties. Use of more prosaic terms like "stalking by groups" to describe attestable real-world group harrassment avoids this connotation, and avoids the danger of synthesis. -- The Anome (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The term "gang stalking" should be approached with extreme caution, as it has been the subject of alarmist internet email chains and conspiracy claims, with little substantiation. I would prefer sourcing to serious print journalism rather than to TV reporting, which tend s to emphasize sensationalist topics. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Two mainstream news stories have been redacted because of semantics, to wit, the use of the term "gang stalking". These include a public statement by an active duty police lieutenant from Santa Cruz on "gang stalking" by groups. Also included is an investigative journalist news story from San Antonio finding multiple, open felony cases related to "gang stalking" by groups by both local San Antonio police, and, the San Antonio Sheriff's Office. These are both FOX-syndicated news stories. The content being scrubbed is probative, factual in nature and relevant, and, is far from being "sensationalist" or tabloid news. The fact that vast conspiracy theories are affiliated with gang stalking is irrelevant to the value of these two factually-based news stories. There are many academic topics that are mired in conspiracy from the moon landing to the J.F.K. assassination. The litmus test should be the quality and content of the materials redacted, not the conspiracy label.PeaceFrog71 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please address Batvette's concerns, which are the central issue at the moment. This article has been the target of sensationalist claims, the residue of which is presently being debated to establish whether the sources fully support the content. We wish to avoid sensationalism and to promote inclusion of appropriately cited and supported material: "scrubbing" is not the aim, factual accuracy and appropriate weight based on the level of coverage in mainstream media is what's required. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Both articles are mainstream media news stories and contain information derived from law enforcement officials. There has been no impeachment of the content of the stories. Batvette's argument that the stories are the residue of "sensationalist" claims is irrelevant. Nothing has been adduced to impeach the credibility of the two news stories citing law enforcement concerns and investigations in both California and Texas. The entire rationale behind the redaction is the use of the term "gang stalking" in both news stories. This term has been adopted for activities of reported group stalking by some law enforcement officials. The redaction based upon the terminology "gang stalking", of otherwise highly probative material on group stalking, is cosmetic and semantic. Suggestion:

Some commentators have used the controversial term "gang stalking" to refer to reported cases of stalking by groups. [ft] PeaceFrog71 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Before deleting the disputed information, batvette said, "I'll try and figure out a way to move or delete that troublesome line that works for all, without losing good content." (Refer to his comment at @ 01:35, 12 June 2012.) Perhaps batvette could clarify what he was referring to as "good content", as we move forward towards "consensus" or some sort of compromise. (It's troubling that the statement and accompanying references were simply deleted, without any apparent attempt to retain the "good content" to which he initially referred.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed the results of a checkuser request on Commons. Can you make any comment on this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked PeaceFrog and the related IP address for edit warring. I'm not going to block Elizabeth at the moment, but any edit while the other two are blocked I will see as socking to avoid a block and treat accordingly. I've created userpages for both accounts: Elizabeth's mentions Frog, and Frog redirects to Elizabeth; thus the relationship between the two is no longer concealable. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

To Elizabeth, after several weeks of deliberation over that I didn't see a way where that reference could have remained without having the conflict of its relevance not exist. It's interesting neither you nor Peacefrog have chosen to address my (hopefully)well stated issues with introducing "gang stalking" to a section which bases its content on people who reported being stalked by groups of people as defined in parameters established in that DOJ poll. (and Peacefrog attributes Acroterion's argument, valid on its own terms, to me? Does he think I am a sock of his?)

I'd still be interested to know what happened to the polling data on that DOJ form about who respondents believe the groups were associated with. Bizarre it just disappeared, especially since all the answers except "other" distinctly preclude "gang stalking" in the sense of government conspiracies, being the case at all.Batvette (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about gang stalking/group stalking/modern lynching

I signed up just to ask. I am a victim of this myself, so i am not neutral/objective in asking by the way. But why are people here so insistent on not having it on the page? It is documented on Fox News, I was going to bring this up and saw multiple people already had. What is the problem with this? Humans have always ganged up on each other. Why is this so hard to believe, you are denying evidence when presented with it... You will all eat your words one day trust me. Anyway, I am to sick to really take up this fight. One day justice will prevail. Look up mass shootings related to gang stalkings. I have registered the Stasi Zersetzung techniques have their own wiki page. These are psychological warfare tactics used in the soviet union, and especially in the D.D.R. The thing is, in todays world everyone and their grandma have access to these tactics. Humans are no less evil now than we were 70 years ago. I understand the sceptics though. I would have a really hard time believing in this had someone told me about it before it started happening to me. We are masters of denial. One day it might happen to you... I hope it doesnt though. As for me I would much rather be killed by a firing squad than being forced to commit suicide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocracyIllusion (talk • contribs) — DemocracyIllusion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Funny that victims of robbery, assault and other crimes are solely focused on reporting those crimes against themselves and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Self claimed gang stalking victims seem only concerned with advertising to the world that it is happening somewhere to someone other than them, and usually have endless excuses why they cannot be bothered to make any effort to document their own case. The exceptions who have posted videos on youtube etc. provide good comedy relief as they "prove" their "torture". To the point why would you care what wikipedia publishes on the issue? How would this prevent you from documenting actual crimes against yourself? Or is it really seeking the validation of having something to show family and friends, that if it happens to somebody somewhere, it could be happening to you? Batvette (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is the government spending millions of dollars to follow and harass some absolute nobody?

Any of these lunatics ever explained that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.130.200 (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)