This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stalking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stalking. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stalking at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EVGrous1125 ( article contribs).
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: BJones8080, Cram25.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have re-removed the material credited to the cracked.com opinion piece. Does it say it? Yes, of course. Is it a reliable source for the evaluation? Of course not. It's an opinion piece, by someone with no demonstrated authority in the subject, nor any indication of investigation or training in the material. The existing references to actual news stories in the section are much more appropriate. At best, the cracked.com material might belong in a section of how the subject is mentioned in popular culture, if there's consensus for such a section - although I wouldn't support it myself. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 05:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel the current state of this resource unfairly diminishes the creditability of any one who is genuinely being abused by real people using tactics that rely on Plausible deniability as a tool. Any one researching a victims claims who relies on Wikipedia as it is now may well discount the victim and there plight. This only serves the perpetrators agenda.
I am very sad to see this sort of imbalance here. I do not have the will to change it. I am sorry.-- Sativarg ( talk) 19:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems the rules here are tightening and for any page on any topic to stand one needs to comply with standards that demand a certain degree of competence and focus. In my current state of mind and body the aforementioned qualities allude me. I hope some one who has the will to advocate the sovereignty of the individual and the sanctity of human rights will step up here and create a more balanced presentation regarding genuine gang or organized stalking and or intimidation.-- Sativarg ( talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In general, it's good to be mindful of the following, IMO. WP:TALK: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I note that our old friend "gang stalking" has reappeared as " Targeted Individual". There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Intended_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
There is plenty of sited resources for the claims that group stalking exists as does the mentality of this stalker even from the 40's. 68.70.225.35 ( talk) 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
@ This article is bing used as a spring-board 4 Ingenuity — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.39.204.241 (
talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm just curious...if "gang stalking" is not verifiable, why is it even mentioned? To me, sandwiching the term "gang stalking" right in between "false accusations" and "delusions of persecution" smacks of weasel-wording! I thought Wikipedia had rules against that? Wikipedia, at least for me, is the first place I go for information about a subject. I assume that could be true for most people. If people really are suffering from the terror of being stalked by multiple people, this wording seems to do them a disservice. Why not just remove "gang stalking" altogether? Thanks for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.155.164 ( talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Show us evidence that meets those criteria, and it can be put in the article in the usual NPOV manner. See the WP:FRINGE page for vastly more about how other fringe beliefs can be, and are, reported by Wikipedia subject to our normal policies. -- The Anome ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The article cited uses several source materials spiced together non-coherently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.204.241 ( talk) 01:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the only thing listed on Wikipedia under Gang Stalking on the Stalking page is a reference to false claims made by delusional conspiracy types is showing a bias from upper level Wikipedia editors. The section further goes on to imply that the phenomenon does not exist except in these cases.
Reports are hard to come by for reliable resources but it is well known that Fox News has had several news stories on it and it has been covered elsewhere as well. <ref> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQuAIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMUGozZDfLSg&ei=T2G_UdS8O5LG4AOpvoHwDw&usg=AFQjCNEr7UGof0McaTr2iRpnPHD1WJhQ_Q&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg</ref>Being that the nature of the crime is completely clandestine it is not well published or covered. Also due to the current climax of it from the use of new technology it is becoming main stream.
If there is an argument on this point then the False Claims section of Wikipedia Stalking needs to be removed until it is settled. Referencing 20 year old studies on a topic that is really just taking off is irresponsible, misleading and false. Nakedwelsh ( talk) 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Main articles: Cyberstalking and Cyberstalking legislation Cyberstalking is the use of computers or other electronic technology to facilitate stalking. A booming “spy shop” industry has sprouted up to supply Hi-tech equipment such as computer hacking or monitoring software, hidden cameras, microphones, and GPS tracking units.[20] In Davis (2001), Lucks identified a separate category of stalkers who instead of a terrestrial means, prefer to perpetrate crimes against their targeted victims through electronic and online means.[21] Stalking by groups[edit] According to a U.S. Department of Justice special report[13] a significant number of people reporting stalking incidents claim that they had been stalked by more than one person, with 18.2% reporting that they were stalked by two people, 13.1% reporting that they had been stalked by three or more. The report did not break down these cases into numbers of victims who claimed to have been stalked by several people individually, and by people acting in concert. A question asked of respondents reporting three or more stalkers by polling personnel about whether the stalking was related to co-workers, members of a gang, fraternities, sororities, etc., did not have its responses indicated in the survey results as released by the DOJ. The data for this report was obtained via the 2006 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS), conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Department of Justice.[14] According to a United Kingdom study by Sheridan and Boon,[22] in 5% of the cases they studied there was more than one stalker, and 40% of the victims said that friends or family of their stalker had also been involved. In 15% of cases, the victim was unaware of any reason for the harassment. Over a quarter of all stalking and harassment victims do not know their stalkers in any capacity. About a tenth responding to the (SVS) did not know the identities of their stalkers. 11% of victims said they had been stalked for 5 years or more.[13] False claims of stalking, "gang stalking" and delusions of persecution[edit] See also: False accusations In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims.[23] In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false.[24] According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions.[24][25] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%.[26] Multiple news reports have described how groups of Internet users have cooperated to exchange detailed conspiracy theories involving coordinated activities by large numbers of people called "gang stalking", often described as involving the use of "psychotronic weapons" and other alleged mind control techniques. These are generally reported by external observers as being examples of belief systems, as opposed to reports of objective phenomena. Some psychiatrists and psychologists say web sites that amplify reports of mind control and group stalking are "an extreme community that may encourage delusional thinking" and represent a dark side of social networking. They may reinforce the troubled thinking of the mentally ill and impede treatment.[27][28] In Davis (2001), he reported "very rare" [29] instances of victimization that were alleged to be true but only falsified to gain attention, secondary or the specific purposes to exploit or manipulate others called "Falsely Alleged Victimization Syndrome" or FAVS.
A January 2011 report on a Fox News affiliate covered a local man who was "Gang Stalked" or "Community Stalked" by a large number of people in his geographical area. Reportedly eventually leading to him having to sell his house and move locations due to the illegal pressures of the group. [1] A police officer in the report commented that while Gang Stalking has been around for a long time it is becoming much more prevalent due to the rise of technology and that groups will use to conduct these illegal activities. Nakedwelsh (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Again I could care less about the government conspiracy BS. I am interested in the factual act of group stalking. One does not need to look further than a street gang to understand this happens. Therefore there should be at least a paragraph to cover the crime. Generally it falls under a State's stalking laws as there is no separate "Gang Stalking" section. All illicit activities that qualify as stalking also apply if a group is involved, yet it is different because due to there being more than one person the activities are spread out, thus making it more difficult to prosecute. Regardless this phenomenon needs to be covered on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh ( talk • contribs)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"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 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynomitedetails ( talk • contribs)
John Lopes, a private investigator in the D.C. area, has written about this topic. His thoughts on "gang stalking" merit inclusion, to add some balance and an opposing view. Here's a bit of his bio:
"John Lopes began developing his interest in the investigative sciences as a military police officer in the United States Army during the Vietnam Era. After his tour of duty overseas, John returned to his native Massachusetts and attended Southeastern Mass University where he majored in psychology and minored in photography. In 1979, John moved to Los Angeles and discovered his true calling as a rookie private investigator-training working for retired FBI agent turned private investigator, James E. Meyers." http://www.theagencyinc.net/about.htm (There's a WSUA9(CBS network affiliate)piece on him that might be helpful to some in assessing his credibility. If one searches for "Virginia Private Detective Catching Cheaters On The News", it's easy to locate.)
What follows is a very brief excerpt of a rather lengthy piece on "gang stalking", posted on his agency's web site: Please refer to http://www.theagencyinc.net/true_stories/gangstalking.pdf for the entire article:
“Gang stalking (or “organized stalking”)involves employing techniques of psychological warfare in a methodical and well-orchestrated manner. Often, victims become the target of ridicule by friends and family because the occurrences are so hard to believe. These tactics are intended to weaken the target to the point of physical and psychological collapse. Now that the number of targets has increased to the point where victims can network with one another, they find out that the same tactics are being used everywhere. ... For stalkers, organized stalking is probably the ultimate experience in “reality” entertainment. To the perpetrators, the targets are merely part of an ongoing game. But make no mistake: This is a vicious crime." (Emphasis is mine.) Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 19:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC) (Lengthy quotation shortened to allay concerns about copyright infringement.) Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 02:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Weinberger reports that her article in the Washington Post, while mentioning the term "gang stalking" was, by and large, about mind control. She wrote (see below): Hi, thanks for joining me here to talk about my article on mind control." ... "I interviewed a lot of people and my focus was more on technology than gang stalking."
Q&A with Sharon Weinberger: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/12/DI2007011201368.html
Sharon Weinberger: Hi, thanks for joining me here to talk about my article on mind control.
The pertinent exchange (a question from someone in San Carlos, Calif):
Question: Was any consideration given to interviewing David Lawson, a private investigator and eye witness to the inner workings of gang stalking who infiltrated the gang stalking network for some 10 years and wrote a book about his experiences entitled "Terrorist Stalking in America" (Scrambling News, 2001)?
Sharon Weinberger: I interviewed a lot of people and my focus was more on technology than gang stalking.
So what we have is one article from the "Fashion and Style" section of The NY Times that focuses on "gang stalking" and, on the basis of this one article, the term "gang stalking" is sandwiched between "False claims of stalking" and "delusions of persecution". (The full Q&A is an interesting read.) Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 20:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This article suffers greatly from weasel words and other neutrality-related issues. Proposing to bring the article up to par with other crime-related articles via recruitment of experienced editors from law-related Wikipedia projects. Ongepotchket ( talk) 08:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth, too much of that discussion became focused on the personal attacks and I spoke to Phil before proceeding. I think it would be much worse to have an editor go in and chop up everyone's comments deciding what parts to leave and what to retain. By doing that I could remove anything portraying me in a bad light and leave insults against other users. In the end it is VERY appropriate for me to remove unfounded personal attacks against myself and another user with his permission, and no content within was yours. Are you sure you just don't want the derogatory comments to stand as record? Back off, Elizabeth. It's a mistake to assume that contents of talk pages are sacred material when the material was nothing more than ad hominem attacks in an attempt to enforce POV editing. If the user wanted his discussion to mean something he should have conducted it maturely. In the interest of fairness and to avoid hypocrisy I will, in the next few days, remove or clean up a comment of mine in a section above that has long been a annoyance to you. Batvette ( talk) 23:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I am going to revert this edit because the material which has been added is either (a) a verbatim duplication of material already added or (b) referenced to Blogspot, a source whose reliability I doubt because it seems to be for USERGENERATED blogs. James500 ( talk) 08:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose to delete the section regarding false accusations in its entirety, as it has no relevance to the topic and appears to be a reactionary response to conspiracy theorists more than useful information. Someone asked why I went and deleted it, and there is my reason.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.166.203 ( talk) 13:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It is obviously relevant because not all offences are equal when it comes to false allegations. An allegation of wounding needs to be supported by medical evidence that can't be easily faked. (People are not likely to be prepared to stab themselves just to get someone else into trouble). An allegation of following might be supported by nothing more than someone's "good word". And how does one go about proving or disproving mental distress when one can't look inside the victims mind to see if they are malingering? Likewise a person is not likely to be mistaken about having been stabbed, but might well be mistaken about having been followed. In any event, the sources indicate that it is relevant because they are specific to this offence. James500 ( talk) 23:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said in my earlier comment, most of the section should be deleted. The following would be a great improvement:
"False claims of stalking
See also: False accusations
In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims.[23] In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false.[24]
According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions.[24][25] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%.[26]"
The final sentence which leaves a lot to be desired, in terms of sentence construction, could be fixed and included, as well.
The rest of the section is pure garbage -- it's not encyclopedic, by any stretch of the imagination and, as such, should be eliminated from this page. Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 18:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm deleting the false accusation/gangstalking stuff. There is not enough balance as a victim of it in the guise of an investigation into who the hell knows what for almost 20 years I lived part of it. I find it offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.100.170 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 July 2014
Gangstalking has been seriously studied as a crime by Nicolas Desurmont, a consultant in criminology and victimology in Belgium:
I think his perspective would add some balance to the section of the article that discusses "gangstalking." CibléEnAmérique ( talk) 07:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to the very dismissive stance this article takes regarding so-called "gangstalking" - there have been multiple governments in the world who have not only deeply researched, but also heavily employed gangstalking as a method of political repression. We know the CIA has done it to some extent during the MKULTRA years. The Soviet Government also engaged in this kind of behavior. However, the most documented and well-known employment of "gangstalking" for no other purpose than to eliminate a political target via psychological harm was done by the East German Stasi prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. They called their methods of coordinated harassment, libel, slander, emotional manipulation, gaslighting, and general terror " Zersetzung" which means "decomposition." The idea was to break away all structures of emotional and physical support a target had, friends, family, employment, and to do this without allowing the target to gain knowledge that the Stasi was proverbially "pulling the strings" behind the operation. This allowed the target to self-blame for something that had, in fact, been inflicted upon him. During MKULTRA, the CIA discovered the most effective forms of psychological torture were those in which the target felt responsible for the actions of the torturer (see: A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy). Anyway, this article is factually incorrect in dismissing the history and use of this method. It is not up to Wikipedia's standards concerning factual accuracy and neutrality. 98.208.85.43 ( talk) 06:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
In the false claims section there's a line that mentions "reports" by "external observers" which I can't find a source for, I think it should be reworded not to form a misleading impression. I also found this link which describes similar techniques to the ones being described by some people as "gang stalking", but in an entirely different context. I thought about putting that link in the "Psychological" section on the harassment entry, then linking that section here, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Please note that the links on the harassment article are outdated and should probably be edited, too. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think if you want that link on wiki it would be a lot more appripriate in the gaslighting article. Really has nothing to do with stalking. Interesting piece though, seems like the KGB still thinks the cold war is on. Or wants another. Batvette ( talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That's really not the point. Like I said, these "reports" mentioned in the article are not sourced, and the external article I linked above describes the same techniques in the "psychological" section of the harassment entry, the one informally known (but not cited!) as gang stalking. I also went later and checked the book, turns out it did include stalking, or literally being "tailed by men in cheap leather jackets", I agree it's irrelevant here but I still find the rewording necessary. As for the Gaslighting article, it doesn't seem to have a section for known cases, for example. I don't want to create one unless if there are other examples. Good day! UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
References number 27 and 28 are the references you seem to have missed. You will find the wording in the section matches that in the references. Are you objecting to what the observors say or that they are called reports by external observors? If so what would you like us to describe them as? Is the reason for your concern disagreement with their analysis? As for being followed by men in cheap leather jackets, the targets were embassy personnel... you've heard of spying?Not sure why we would want to confuse espionage with stalking? Batvette ( talk) 13:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I did see the references, and I can't find that wording. Who is considered an "external observer"? Is it the person who wrote the article? Is it someone on this wiki? because it shouldn't be. There isn't any reference mentioning -say- a random sample of people that agree these claims are not objective for it to be called "reports", which I find very misleading. Where exactly did that wording match the reference, anyway? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) On second thought, both articles attribute the term "stalking" to "delusions of targeting by government spies" so I'm not the one mixing the two, and please don't bother with the article I mentioned earlier because it doesn't seem to fit here, I just thought it was worth mentioning. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)I know this is weird, but on a THIRD though...Have YOU read reference 27? Read all of it, not just the parts you want to read. It's long but it's actually very neutral...Unlike the paragraph on this article. Also, I noticed you were asking about my opinion; No, I don't believe a portable government device can be used to control someone's mind...How's that relevant? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 06:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Serial killers Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees both stalked their victims as well before killing them, didn't they? Well, I think it's actually considered they did, so... is someone in favor of it, or at least can assist me in it?-- שי אביגד ( talk) 19:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the false allegations section. Please pardon my apparent –yet false- determination to get this thing off the page, and of course my limited knowledge of Wikipedia rules, but we all have to start somewhere. I combined a list of everything I found questionable about this section, feel free to answer to each point individually. (And please stop asking for personal opinions, thank you.) UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Is “gang stalking” relevant to this page? Does it add any encyclopaedic value? Would it be better on another page? Would it be better if it wasn’t on any page? Please discuss. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
According to references 27 and 28, “gang stalking” is a common term referring to a growing community on the internet that describes a detailed, unbacked claim of continuous surveillance and harassment of so-called “targeted individuals”. These alleged harassment methods include gas-lighting techniques, stalking by neighbours and several “mind control” weapons that seem to combine several other theories. Does this sound correct so far? And if it is, would that be relevant to this page? Which -of course- describes stalking in a legal sense. If that was incorrect in any way, is it at all possible to deduce a definition of “gang stalking” from the two available sources? To include on this page maybe? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read the sources, especially 27. They don’t exactly arrive at the same conclusion stated on this page, but rather they mention each point of view, and mostly without compromise. They may have some hints of sarcastic undertones, but who am I to judge? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand these two sources are -by definition- reliable, yes, but they’re not scientific research, and they’re not legal papers, they are news articles; they’re more than enough at asserting “who said what”, and not “which one is correct”. I believe claiming an entire community on the internet is exhibiting paranoid, delusional behaviour requires separate scientific research or individualized psychiatric evaluation, especially when no actual legal investigation has been conducted. I could be wrong though… UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it notable? It seems that Wikipedia has less strict notability rules when it comes to sections (instead of entire articles), but there’s a word for that, hijacking. I don’t see the point of a page notability criteria if you can turn that page into a section in another article (which basically does the same job of including it on the wiki). If this section is notable enough, doesn’t that warrant its own page? Even a stub? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure I get the last two lines. Is FAVS a real syndrome? Do any other sources exist? These two lines are rather confusing, if you understand them, please articulate. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, those sources do not support or document that gang stalking is a real phenomenon, and the subject of those pieces is reflected in the content used from them. Batvette ( talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I would surmise one reason the gangstalking issue appears on this page is because this is the page its believers kept trying to push their agenda on. If you look over this talk page and its archives carefully you can review the efforts to create an article addressing it and the results of those discussions. The atmosphere at wiki has not changed nor have any reliable sources surfaced documenting it so don't expect any changes soon. Batvette ( talk) 07:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Your basic disagreement is that the idea of gangstalking is being ridiculed and doubted, (and while ad hominem comments are frowned upon, it must be said) the only people who insist on promoting this seem to be crank conspiracy theorists and those suffering from delusions. Wikipedia as a whole resists attempts by such people to use it as a soapbox to reinforce their beliefs. Back to the point, it is completely verifiable that paranoid conspiracy theorists believe they are being stalked by groups of people. That is why it appears in the stalking article. Batvette ( talk) 04:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
And you certainly couldnt be the same person who long ago wrote on another editors page: "my problem would be the line describing "gang stalking" as a "belief system" instead of an objective phenomenon by external observers. There are no examples of these reports, which I believe should be described in the utmost detail, or at the very least have their own source instead of just glossing over it. There is a much bigger issue, however; just because something is dismissed by doctors or even scientists in general as delusions, doesn't mean it should be described as such, and only as such, in an encyclopedia." Please don't patronize me. You have an agenda, you aren't the first. Thank you and have a splendid day. Batvette ( talk) 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand where you're coming from, really! But please stop deviating from the topic, that's no way to make a point. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 10:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC) To make a long story short, if I don't have proof of something, I don't just keep attacking it because it's against "common sense" or because weak sources attack it as well, I don't assume that it is correct because of an "agenda", either. In other words, I don't present either views as objective, inarguable information. But then again, that's all me. I don't know how it goes around here. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 11:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This recent Motherboard article [3] is a good source of citable material and quotes for this section. In particular, it cites this recent New York Times story: [4] -- The Anome ( talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone seen the tv series? It shows Scientologist stalking ex members (Mike Rinder, Leah Remini etc). Anyone care to make references of the series to add to the wiki article (under Organize Stalking)? I cant write well.
--Bill — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
205.189.94.11 (
talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be an legitimate albeit unusual example of stalking, occurring as it does using third party apps in an augmented reality game for illicit gaming advantage. Thoughts? "Ingress Players Use Unofficial Tools To Stalk One Another". kotaku.com. Retrieved 9 November 2017.
kencf0618 ( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Complete meaning of stalking
Stalking is one of the most difficult crimes to prove because it is largely subjective. Stalking is made up of a series of actions that, by themselves, are legal but with the intent to harass are illegal. For example, leaving a woman flowers, calling her or waiting outside of her office are all legal actions. Rehabak ( talk) 08:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I set up this article. Previously that name redirected here, to "stalking". There has been regular discussion on this topic on this talk page and elsewhere for years. Check out the documentation which I posted on the talk page there for details. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This paper presents a history of stalking.
The claim that I think is most likely to surprise future generations is that stalking is a social concept which appeared in the 1990s. Before that time, there was no commonly accepted term for the general behavior. This paper tries to make a history of related concepts, like Virgil writing poetry to Beatrice, but is unable to find early accounts of stalking either in academic writing or the popular press. Right now there is a definitions section. I added some of this information there. That section could be reframed more as history using this source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
As of march 31st 2021, Brazil has sanctioned the law nº 14.132/2021 which criminalizes the act of persecution (aka stalking), before, stalking constituted as a contravention under civil law. As of now, the sentencing for stalking is between 6 months to 2 years plus a fine, the sentence can be extended by half if; I. The victim is a child, teenager or elderly. II. The victim is a woman. III. There are multiple stalkers and/or usage of a weapon.
I'm looking to make my first edit and I've had a few ideas I just want to create some dialogue so I get some different opinions!
While the Stalking page currently refers to definitions and psychological motivations behind stalking, there is no discussion of the measurement of stalking or the extent to which stalking behaviors can influence the survivor's mentality aside from changes or disruptions to their daily life.
The Stalking Assessment Indices (SAI) is a relatively new (2020) method of measuring stalking from the perspective of both perpetrators and survivors [2]. Previous indices used may include the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) [3] Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ) [4] and the Relation Rumination Questionnaire (RelRQ) [5] which are all also mentioned in the 2020 McEwan, Simmons, Clothier, & Senkans article.
EVGrous1125 ( talk) 14:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
References
"Even celebrities may not be able to solve it for a long time when faced with stalking of illegitimate meals."
What?
"In the case of Wuhu, Anhui in March 2018, the entangled woman repeatedly rescued the police to no avail and was eventually killed."
Huh? 162.251.16.246 ( talk) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
There’s something frankly creepy about the illustration used in the article /info/en/?search=Stalking#/media/File:Paul_Rader_-_Over_Exposed_-_1962.jpg
Paul Rader was a talented artist who often painted soft-erotica-style pin-up pictures for pulp books and things “True Detective”. He illustrated covers for titles like “Sex Kitten”, “Sea Nymph”, “69 Pleasures”, and - the picture used in the article - “Over Exposed”.
Anyway, the point is that his pictures were partly designed to be titillating and arousing, so the addition of an illustration like this into an article about stalking is bizarrely insensitive.
It’s not about thinking of people’s “feelings” - one is of course aware that an encyclopedia has be be objective and cold, in a sense, but this illustration just doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Charliepenandink ( talk) 18:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stalking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stalking. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stalking at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EVGrous1125 ( article contribs).
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: BJones8080, Cram25.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have re-removed the material credited to the cracked.com opinion piece. Does it say it? Yes, of course. Is it a reliable source for the evaluation? Of course not. It's an opinion piece, by someone with no demonstrated authority in the subject, nor any indication of investigation or training in the material. The existing references to actual news stories in the section are much more appropriate. At best, the cracked.com material might belong in a section of how the subject is mentioned in popular culture, if there's consensus for such a section - although I wouldn't support it myself. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 05:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel the current state of this resource unfairly diminishes the creditability of any one who is genuinely being abused by real people using tactics that rely on Plausible deniability as a tool. Any one researching a victims claims who relies on Wikipedia as it is now may well discount the victim and there plight. This only serves the perpetrators agenda.
I am very sad to see this sort of imbalance here. I do not have the will to change it. I am sorry.-- Sativarg ( talk) 19:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems the rules here are tightening and for any page on any topic to stand one needs to comply with standards that demand a certain degree of competence and focus. In my current state of mind and body the aforementioned qualities allude me. I hope some one who has the will to advocate the sovereignty of the individual and the sanctity of human rights will step up here and create a more balanced presentation regarding genuine gang or organized stalking and or intimidation.-- Sativarg ( talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In general, it's good to be mindful of the following, IMO. WP:TALK: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I note that our old friend "gang stalking" has reappeared as " Targeted Individual". There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Intended_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
There is plenty of sited resources for the claims that group stalking exists as does the mentality of this stalker even from the 40's. 68.70.225.35 ( talk) 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
@ This article is bing used as a spring-board 4 Ingenuity — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.39.204.241 (
talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm just curious...if "gang stalking" is not verifiable, why is it even mentioned? To me, sandwiching the term "gang stalking" right in between "false accusations" and "delusions of persecution" smacks of weasel-wording! I thought Wikipedia had rules against that? Wikipedia, at least for me, is the first place I go for information about a subject. I assume that could be true for most people. If people really are suffering from the terror of being stalked by multiple people, this wording seems to do them a disservice. Why not just remove "gang stalking" altogether? Thanks for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.155.164 ( talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Show us evidence that meets those criteria, and it can be put in the article in the usual NPOV manner. See the WP:FRINGE page for vastly more about how other fringe beliefs can be, and are, reported by Wikipedia subject to our normal policies. -- The Anome ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The article cited uses several source materials spiced together non-coherently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.204.241 ( talk) 01:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the only thing listed on Wikipedia under Gang Stalking on the Stalking page is a reference to false claims made by delusional conspiracy types is showing a bias from upper level Wikipedia editors. The section further goes on to imply that the phenomenon does not exist except in these cases.
Reports are hard to come by for reliable resources but it is well known that Fox News has had several news stories on it and it has been covered elsewhere as well. <ref> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQuAIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMUGozZDfLSg&ei=T2G_UdS8O5LG4AOpvoHwDw&usg=AFQjCNEr7UGof0McaTr2iRpnPHD1WJhQ_Q&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg</ref>Being that the nature of the crime is completely clandestine it is not well published or covered. Also due to the current climax of it from the use of new technology it is becoming main stream.
If there is an argument on this point then the False Claims section of Wikipedia Stalking needs to be removed until it is settled. Referencing 20 year old studies on a topic that is really just taking off is irresponsible, misleading and false. Nakedwelsh ( talk) 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Main articles: Cyberstalking and Cyberstalking legislation Cyberstalking is the use of computers or other electronic technology to facilitate stalking. A booming “spy shop” industry has sprouted up to supply Hi-tech equipment such as computer hacking or monitoring software, hidden cameras, microphones, and GPS tracking units.[20] In Davis (2001), Lucks identified a separate category of stalkers who instead of a terrestrial means, prefer to perpetrate crimes against their targeted victims through electronic and online means.[21] Stalking by groups[edit] According to a U.S. Department of Justice special report[13] a significant number of people reporting stalking incidents claim that they had been stalked by more than one person, with 18.2% reporting that they were stalked by two people, 13.1% reporting that they had been stalked by three or more. The report did not break down these cases into numbers of victims who claimed to have been stalked by several people individually, and by people acting in concert. A question asked of respondents reporting three or more stalkers by polling personnel about whether the stalking was related to co-workers, members of a gang, fraternities, sororities, etc., did not have its responses indicated in the survey results as released by the DOJ. The data for this report was obtained via the 2006 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS), conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Department of Justice.[14] According to a United Kingdom study by Sheridan and Boon,[22] in 5% of the cases they studied there was more than one stalker, and 40% of the victims said that friends or family of their stalker had also been involved. In 15% of cases, the victim was unaware of any reason for the harassment. Over a quarter of all stalking and harassment victims do not know their stalkers in any capacity. About a tenth responding to the (SVS) did not know the identities of their stalkers. 11% of victims said they had been stalked for 5 years or more.[13] False claims of stalking, "gang stalking" and delusions of persecution[edit] See also: False accusations In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims.[23] In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false.[24] According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions.[24][25] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%.[26] Multiple news reports have described how groups of Internet users have cooperated to exchange detailed conspiracy theories involving coordinated activities by large numbers of people called "gang stalking", often described as involving the use of "psychotronic weapons" and other alleged mind control techniques. These are generally reported by external observers as being examples of belief systems, as opposed to reports of objective phenomena. Some psychiatrists and psychologists say web sites that amplify reports of mind control and group stalking are "an extreme community that may encourage delusional thinking" and represent a dark side of social networking. They may reinforce the troubled thinking of the mentally ill and impede treatment.[27][28] In Davis (2001), he reported "very rare" [29] instances of victimization that were alleged to be true but only falsified to gain attention, secondary or the specific purposes to exploit or manipulate others called "Falsely Alleged Victimization Syndrome" or FAVS.
A January 2011 report on a Fox News affiliate covered a local man who was "Gang Stalked" or "Community Stalked" by a large number of people in his geographical area. Reportedly eventually leading to him having to sell his house and move locations due to the illegal pressures of the group. [1] A police officer in the report commented that while Gang Stalking has been around for a long time it is becoming much more prevalent due to the rise of technology and that groups will use to conduct these illegal activities. Nakedwelsh (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Again I could care less about the government conspiracy BS. I am interested in the factual act of group stalking. One does not need to look further than a street gang to understand this happens. Therefore there should be at least a paragraph to cover the crime. Generally it falls under a State's stalking laws as there is no separate "Gang Stalking" section. All illicit activities that qualify as stalking also apply if a group is involved, yet it is different because due to there being more than one person the activities are spread out, thus making it more difficult to prosecute. Regardless this phenomenon needs to be covered on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh ( talk • contribs)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"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 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynomitedetails ( talk • contribs)
John Lopes, a private investigator in the D.C. area, has written about this topic. His thoughts on "gang stalking" merit inclusion, to add some balance and an opposing view. Here's a bit of his bio:
"John Lopes began developing his interest in the investigative sciences as a military police officer in the United States Army during the Vietnam Era. After his tour of duty overseas, John returned to his native Massachusetts and attended Southeastern Mass University where he majored in psychology and minored in photography. In 1979, John moved to Los Angeles and discovered his true calling as a rookie private investigator-training working for retired FBI agent turned private investigator, James E. Meyers." http://www.theagencyinc.net/about.htm (There's a WSUA9(CBS network affiliate)piece on him that might be helpful to some in assessing his credibility. If one searches for "Virginia Private Detective Catching Cheaters On The News", it's easy to locate.)
What follows is a very brief excerpt of a rather lengthy piece on "gang stalking", posted on his agency's web site: Please refer to http://www.theagencyinc.net/true_stories/gangstalking.pdf for the entire article:
“Gang stalking (or “organized stalking”)involves employing techniques of psychological warfare in a methodical and well-orchestrated manner. Often, victims become the target of ridicule by friends and family because the occurrences are so hard to believe. These tactics are intended to weaken the target to the point of physical and psychological collapse. Now that the number of targets has increased to the point where victims can network with one another, they find out that the same tactics are being used everywhere. ... For stalkers, organized stalking is probably the ultimate experience in “reality” entertainment. To the perpetrators, the targets are merely part of an ongoing game. But make no mistake: This is a vicious crime." (Emphasis is mine.) Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 19:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC) (Lengthy quotation shortened to allay concerns about copyright infringement.) Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 02:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Weinberger reports that her article in the Washington Post, while mentioning the term "gang stalking" was, by and large, about mind control. She wrote (see below): Hi, thanks for joining me here to talk about my article on mind control." ... "I interviewed a lot of people and my focus was more on technology than gang stalking."
Q&A with Sharon Weinberger: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/12/DI2007011201368.html
Sharon Weinberger: Hi, thanks for joining me here to talk about my article on mind control.
The pertinent exchange (a question from someone in San Carlos, Calif):
Question: Was any consideration given to interviewing David Lawson, a private investigator and eye witness to the inner workings of gang stalking who infiltrated the gang stalking network for some 10 years and wrote a book about his experiences entitled "Terrorist Stalking in America" (Scrambling News, 2001)?
Sharon Weinberger: I interviewed a lot of people and my focus was more on technology than gang stalking.
So what we have is one article from the "Fashion and Style" section of The NY Times that focuses on "gang stalking" and, on the basis of this one article, the term "gang stalking" is sandwiched between "False claims of stalking" and "delusions of persecution". (The full Q&A is an interesting read.) Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 20:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This article suffers greatly from weasel words and other neutrality-related issues. Proposing to bring the article up to par with other crime-related articles via recruitment of experienced editors from law-related Wikipedia projects. Ongepotchket ( talk) 08:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth, too much of that discussion became focused on the personal attacks and I spoke to Phil before proceeding. I think it would be much worse to have an editor go in and chop up everyone's comments deciding what parts to leave and what to retain. By doing that I could remove anything portraying me in a bad light and leave insults against other users. In the end it is VERY appropriate for me to remove unfounded personal attacks against myself and another user with his permission, and no content within was yours. Are you sure you just don't want the derogatory comments to stand as record? Back off, Elizabeth. It's a mistake to assume that contents of talk pages are sacred material when the material was nothing more than ad hominem attacks in an attempt to enforce POV editing. If the user wanted his discussion to mean something he should have conducted it maturely. In the interest of fairness and to avoid hypocrisy I will, in the next few days, remove or clean up a comment of mine in a section above that has long been a annoyance to you. Batvette ( talk) 23:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I am going to revert this edit because the material which has been added is either (a) a verbatim duplication of material already added or (b) referenced to Blogspot, a source whose reliability I doubt because it seems to be for USERGENERATED blogs. James500 ( talk) 08:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose to delete the section regarding false accusations in its entirety, as it has no relevance to the topic and appears to be a reactionary response to conspiracy theorists more than useful information. Someone asked why I went and deleted it, and there is my reason.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.166.203 ( talk) 13:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It is obviously relevant because not all offences are equal when it comes to false allegations. An allegation of wounding needs to be supported by medical evidence that can't be easily faked. (People are not likely to be prepared to stab themselves just to get someone else into trouble). An allegation of following might be supported by nothing more than someone's "good word". And how does one go about proving or disproving mental distress when one can't look inside the victims mind to see if they are malingering? Likewise a person is not likely to be mistaken about having been stabbed, but might well be mistaken about having been followed. In any event, the sources indicate that it is relevant because they are specific to this offence. James500 ( talk) 23:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said in my earlier comment, most of the section should be deleted. The following would be a great improvement:
"False claims of stalking
See also: False accusations
In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims.[23] In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false.[24]
According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions.[24][25] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%.[26]"
The final sentence which leaves a lot to be desired, in terms of sentence construction, could be fixed and included, as well.
The rest of the section is pure garbage -- it's not encyclopedic, by any stretch of the imagination and, as such, should be eliminated from this page. Elizabeth Blandra ( talk) 18:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm deleting the false accusation/gangstalking stuff. There is not enough balance as a victim of it in the guise of an investigation into who the hell knows what for almost 20 years I lived part of it. I find it offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.100.170 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 July 2014
Gangstalking has been seriously studied as a crime by Nicolas Desurmont, a consultant in criminology and victimology in Belgium:
I think his perspective would add some balance to the section of the article that discusses "gangstalking." CibléEnAmérique ( talk) 07:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to the very dismissive stance this article takes regarding so-called "gangstalking" - there have been multiple governments in the world who have not only deeply researched, but also heavily employed gangstalking as a method of political repression. We know the CIA has done it to some extent during the MKULTRA years. The Soviet Government also engaged in this kind of behavior. However, the most documented and well-known employment of "gangstalking" for no other purpose than to eliminate a political target via psychological harm was done by the East German Stasi prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. They called their methods of coordinated harassment, libel, slander, emotional manipulation, gaslighting, and general terror " Zersetzung" which means "decomposition." The idea was to break away all structures of emotional and physical support a target had, friends, family, employment, and to do this without allowing the target to gain knowledge that the Stasi was proverbially "pulling the strings" behind the operation. This allowed the target to self-blame for something that had, in fact, been inflicted upon him. During MKULTRA, the CIA discovered the most effective forms of psychological torture were those in which the target felt responsible for the actions of the torturer (see: A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy). Anyway, this article is factually incorrect in dismissing the history and use of this method. It is not up to Wikipedia's standards concerning factual accuracy and neutrality. 98.208.85.43 ( talk) 06:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
In the false claims section there's a line that mentions "reports" by "external observers" which I can't find a source for, I think it should be reworded not to form a misleading impression. I also found this link which describes similar techniques to the ones being described by some people as "gang stalking", but in an entirely different context. I thought about putting that link in the "Psychological" section on the harassment entry, then linking that section here, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Please note that the links on the harassment article are outdated and should probably be edited, too. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think if you want that link on wiki it would be a lot more appripriate in the gaslighting article. Really has nothing to do with stalking. Interesting piece though, seems like the KGB still thinks the cold war is on. Or wants another. Batvette ( talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That's really not the point. Like I said, these "reports" mentioned in the article are not sourced, and the external article I linked above describes the same techniques in the "psychological" section of the harassment entry, the one informally known (but not cited!) as gang stalking. I also went later and checked the book, turns out it did include stalking, or literally being "tailed by men in cheap leather jackets", I agree it's irrelevant here but I still find the rewording necessary. As for the Gaslighting article, it doesn't seem to have a section for known cases, for example. I don't want to create one unless if there are other examples. Good day! UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
References number 27 and 28 are the references you seem to have missed. You will find the wording in the section matches that in the references. Are you objecting to what the observors say or that they are called reports by external observors? If so what would you like us to describe them as? Is the reason for your concern disagreement with their analysis? As for being followed by men in cheap leather jackets, the targets were embassy personnel... you've heard of spying?Not sure why we would want to confuse espionage with stalking? Batvette ( talk) 13:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I did see the references, and I can't find that wording. Who is considered an "external observer"? Is it the person who wrote the article? Is it someone on this wiki? because it shouldn't be. There isn't any reference mentioning -say- a random sample of people that agree these claims are not objective for it to be called "reports", which I find very misleading. Where exactly did that wording match the reference, anyway? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) On second thought, both articles attribute the term "stalking" to "delusions of targeting by government spies" so I'm not the one mixing the two, and please don't bother with the article I mentioned earlier because it doesn't seem to fit here, I just thought it was worth mentioning. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)I know this is weird, but on a THIRD though...Have YOU read reference 27? Read all of it, not just the parts you want to read. It's long but it's actually very neutral...Unlike the paragraph on this article. Also, I noticed you were asking about my opinion; No, I don't believe a portable government device can be used to control someone's mind...How's that relevant? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 06:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Serial killers Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees both stalked their victims as well before killing them, didn't they? Well, I think it's actually considered they did, so... is someone in favor of it, or at least can assist me in it?-- שי אביגד ( talk) 19:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the false allegations section. Please pardon my apparent –yet false- determination to get this thing off the page, and of course my limited knowledge of Wikipedia rules, but we all have to start somewhere. I combined a list of everything I found questionable about this section, feel free to answer to each point individually. (And please stop asking for personal opinions, thank you.) UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Is “gang stalking” relevant to this page? Does it add any encyclopaedic value? Would it be better on another page? Would it be better if it wasn’t on any page? Please discuss. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
According to references 27 and 28, “gang stalking” is a common term referring to a growing community on the internet that describes a detailed, unbacked claim of continuous surveillance and harassment of so-called “targeted individuals”. These alleged harassment methods include gas-lighting techniques, stalking by neighbours and several “mind control” weapons that seem to combine several other theories. Does this sound correct so far? And if it is, would that be relevant to this page? Which -of course- describes stalking in a legal sense. If that was incorrect in any way, is it at all possible to deduce a definition of “gang stalking” from the two available sources? To include on this page maybe? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read the sources, especially 27. They don’t exactly arrive at the same conclusion stated on this page, but rather they mention each point of view, and mostly without compromise. They may have some hints of sarcastic undertones, but who am I to judge? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand these two sources are -by definition- reliable, yes, but they’re not scientific research, and they’re not legal papers, they are news articles; they’re more than enough at asserting “who said what”, and not “which one is correct”. I believe claiming an entire community on the internet is exhibiting paranoid, delusional behaviour requires separate scientific research or individualized psychiatric evaluation, especially when no actual legal investigation has been conducted. I could be wrong though… UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it notable? It seems that Wikipedia has less strict notability rules when it comes to sections (instead of entire articles), but there’s a word for that, hijacking. I don’t see the point of a page notability criteria if you can turn that page into a section in another article (which basically does the same job of including it on the wiki). If this section is notable enough, doesn’t that warrant its own page? Even a stub? UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure I get the last two lines. Is FAVS a real syndrome? Do any other sources exist? These two lines are rather confusing, if you understand them, please articulate. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, those sources do not support or document that gang stalking is a real phenomenon, and the subject of those pieces is reflected in the content used from them. Batvette ( talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I would surmise one reason the gangstalking issue appears on this page is because this is the page its believers kept trying to push their agenda on. If you look over this talk page and its archives carefully you can review the efforts to create an article addressing it and the results of those discussions. The atmosphere at wiki has not changed nor have any reliable sources surfaced documenting it so don't expect any changes soon. Batvette ( talk) 07:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Your basic disagreement is that the idea of gangstalking is being ridiculed and doubted, (and while ad hominem comments are frowned upon, it must be said) the only people who insist on promoting this seem to be crank conspiracy theorists and those suffering from delusions. Wikipedia as a whole resists attempts by such people to use it as a soapbox to reinforce their beliefs. Back to the point, it is completely verifiable that paranoid conspiracy theorists believe they are being stalked by groups of people. That is why it appears in the stalking article. Batvette ( talk) 04:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
And you certainly couldnt be the same person who long ago wrote on another editors page: "my problem would be the line describing "gang stalking" as a "belief system" instead of an objective phenomenon by external observers. There are no examples of these reports, which I believe should be described in the utmost detail, or at the very least have their own source instead of just glossing over it. There is a much bigger issue, however; just because something is dismissed by doctors or even scientists in general as delusions, doesn't mean it should be described as such, and only as such, in an encyclopedia." Please don't patronize me. You have an agenda, you aren't the first. Thank you and have a splendid day. Batvette ( talk) 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand where you're coming from, really! But please stop deviating from the topic, that's no way to make a point. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 10:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC) To make a long story short, if I don't have proof of something, I don't just keep attacking it because it's against "common sense" or because weak sources attack it as well, I don't assume that it is correct because of an "agenda", either. In other words, I don't present either views as objective, inarguable information. But then again, that's all me. I don't know how it goes around here. UnluckyClover77 ( talk) 11:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This recent Motherboard article [3] is a good source of citable material and quotes for this section. In particular, it cites this recent New York Times story: [4] -- The Anome ( talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone seen the tv series? It shows Scientologist stalking ex members (Mike Rinder, Leah Remini etc). Anyone care to make references of the series to add to the wiki article (under Organize Stalking)? I cant write well.
--Bill — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
205.189.94.11 (
talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be an legitimate albeit unusual example of stalking, occurring as it does using third party apps in an augmented reality game for illicit gaming advantage. Thoughts? "Ingress Players Use Unofficial Tools To Stalk One Another". kotaku.com. Retrieved 9 November 2017.
kencf0618 ( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Complete meaning of stalking
Stalking is one of the most difficult crimes to prove because it is largely subjective. Stalking is made up of a series of actions that, by themselves, are legal but with the intent to harass are illegal. For example, leaving a woman flowers, calling her or waiting outside of her office are all legal actions. Rehabak ( talk) 08:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I set up this article. Previously that name redirected here, to "stalking". There has been regular discussion on this topic on this talk page and elsewhere for years. Check out the documentation which I posted on the talk page there for details. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This paper presents a history of stalking.
The claim that I think is most likely to surprise future generations is that stalking is a social concept which appeared in the 1990s. Before that time, there was no commonly accepted term for the general behavior. This paper tries to make a history of related concepts, like Virgil writing poetry to Beatrice, but is unable to find early accounts of stalking either in academic writing or the popular press. Right now there is a definitions section. I added some of this information there. That section could be reframed more as history using this source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
As of march 31st 2021, Brazil has sanctioned the law nº 14.132/2021 which criminalizes the act of persecution (aka stalking), before, stalking constituted as a contravention under civil law. As of now, the sentencing for stalking is between 6 months to 2 years plus a fine, the sentence can be extended by half if; I. The victim is a child, teenager or elderly. II. The victim is a woman. III. There are multiple stalkers and/or usage of a weapon.
I'm looking to make my first edit and I've had a few ideas I just want to create some dialogue so I get some different opinions!
While the Stalking page currently refers to definitions and psychological motivations behind stalking, there is no discussion of the measurement of stalking or the extent to which stalking behaviors can influence the survivor's mentality aside from changes or disruptions to their daily life.
The Stalking Assessment Indices (SAI) is a relatively new (2020) method of measuring stalking from the perspective of both perpetrators and survivors [2]. Previous indices used may include the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) [3] Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ) [4] and the Relation Rumination Questionnaire (RelRQ) [5] which are all also mentioned in the 2020 McEwan, Simmons, Clothier, & Senkans article.
EVGrous1125 ( talk) 14:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
References
"Even celebrities may not be able to solve it for a long time when faced with stalking of illegitimate meals."
What?
"In the case of Wuhu, Anhui in March 2018, the entangled woman repeatedly rescued the police to no avail and was eventually killed."
Huh? 162.251.16.246 ( talk) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
There’s something frankly creepy about the illustration used in the article /info/en/?search=Stalking#/media/File:Paul_Rader_-_Over_Exposed_-_1962.jpg
Paul Rader was a talented artist who often painted soft-erotica-style pin-up pictures for pulp books and things “True Detective”. He illustrated covers for titles like “Sex Kitten”, “Sea Nymph”, “69 Pleasures”, and - the picture used in the article - “Over Exposed”.
Anyway, the point is that his pictures were partly designed to be titillating and arousing, so the addition of an illustration like this into an article about stalking is bizarrely insensitive.
It’s not about thinking of people’s “feelings” - one is of course aware that an encyclopedia has be be objective and cold, in a sense, but this illustration just doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Charliepenandink ( talk) 18:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)