Talk:Stalking

cracked.com material

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)

Fair enough but if you applied this- It's an opinion piece, by someone with no demonstrated authority in the subject, nor any indication of investigation or training in the material. as a standard for RS on wiki, 80% of its content would be removed overnight. The rationale I could see for not including it in the article amount to that it's from cracked, which is explicitly mentioned in the RS policy as worthy of exclusion, and it adds a bit of circus to an otherwise encyclopedic article. Not that it's inaccurate or not well researched. It does reflect the reality of what is described in the existing content quite well. I'm not pushing hard to keep it however, I didn't even add it in the first place. I think merely adding the link to the existing references which are inclusive in media sources, without specifically citing cracked's own claim, would suffice. It would stand as another example of what media sources have noted. Batvette (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. "an opinion piece, by someone with no demonstrated authority in the subject, nor any indication of investigation or training in the material" is by definition not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I already stated I wasn't pushing hard to keep it. I did not however find "by definition" that description by another editor included in the wiki policy page you referenced. It does specify a number of instances where opinion is acceptable. Please do not attempt wikilawyering without at least minimal competence. Batvette (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Organized Stalking & victim creditability

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)

We are not diminishing anyone's credibility. By only including content the can be attributed to reliable sources we are simply making a decision that this encyclopedia is not the approprite place for such information, not giving any opinion about its truth status. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear why anyone who wishes to "research a victim's claims" would come to Wikipedia to do so. If a person claimed criminal activity was happening to them would it not be appropriate to observe things that were happening in the vicinity of that person? How would it prove something is happening to one person if someone can find it happens to someone else far away? Doesn't this really validate the theory of this being a product of a group belief system if for one to be convinced something is happening, they must go on the internet and find that strangers in other places also believe the same thing?

This is why this issue will never see the "balanced presentation" some would like, as the desire seems to be that a wiki article should exist to provide a resource some would use to validate their beliefs. Gang Stalking has not been credibly documented to actually exist other than a few isolated instances of vague resemblance which were quite different than the wide spread phenomenon claimed by internet GS "activists". Misleading people and encouraging such belief systems is an agenda that's never going to happen here.

To be more direct, if one believes this is happening to them don't send people to wiki or anywhere else on the internet hoping the stories of others will support your own- and don't seek to be "educated" by people who want you to share in their own foolish self ruination. Get a video camera and compile evidence for your experiences and claims and take control of your situation. Batvette (talk) 16:00, 25 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 don't see a "hall monitor" badge on your user page assigning you to wander around posting patronizing remarks about wiki policies after others' comments. My comment was directed toward the obvious desire by some previous editors to use this article as a resource to "prove gang stalking exists", and was related to the other user's comment. What did you think I was talking about?

Hypocrisy much?Batvette (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Gang stalking has popped up again

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)

Your denial of Group Stalking is astonishing considering the facts

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)

Hi. The article already has a section dedicated to stalking by groups, which is a relatively common phenomenon that has been reported by numerous sources, at Stalking#Stalking by groups. Examples include members of a gang or a family cooperating in persecuting an individual.

However, from the links above, you seem to be referring to harrassment of individuals by organized, highly sophisticated groups using electronic weapons, etc., a phenomenon popularly known as "gang stalking". One common theme in these is the reported use of high-technology weaponry capable of delivering harm in an invisible way, a theme which can be seen in James Tilly Matthews' reports of the "Air Loom" that he believed was used to attack him. The problem with this alleged phenomenon is the lack of any verifiable evidence for its existence as a real phenomenon, other than anecdotal evidence by its self-described targets. On the other hand, these anecdotal accounts are sufficiently common that they are themselves a well-described and verifiable phenomenon, generally regarded by experts in the field as delusional in nature, which the article reports on in a separate section.

@ 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)

This does not mean that Wikipedia has set its face forever against including this in the article: only that the same verifiability and notability criteria apply to it as any other topic. If publically available evidence from multiple independent reliable sources (see WP:V for the exact criteria) suggesting that these phenomena were real were to come to light, the same rules would allow this article to be changed for them to be reported as such. Until then, however, the current state of affairs is likely to continue. For more on Wikipedia's policies on reporting these and other disputed phenomena, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and WP:FRINGE.

-- The Anome (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Anome wrote: "The article already has a section dedicated to stalking by groups, which is a relatively common phenomenon that has been reported by numerous sources, at Stalking#Stalking by groups. Examples include members of a gang or a family cooperating in persecuting an individual." A point of clarification: The SVS asked the following, in an attempt to elicit additional information about those who reported being stalked by "three or more perpetrators": Question "6e" reads as follows: "Please describe the general nature of the group. For example, were they co-workers, members of a gang, fraternity, sorority, ex-partner working with others, etc.? Another option was "Other - Specify." So we can't conclude anything specific about the responses -- that information wasn't provided in the subsequent report that was issued.

With regard to reliable, verifiable sources, it might be prudent to remember the following: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june04/nytimes_05-26.html ("The New York Times published a critique of its own reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the editorial board admitted its coverage was flawed and relied too heavily on suspect intelligence sources.") Looking at Wikipedia's page on Judith Miller, one finds the following: "Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948) is an American journalist, formerly of the New York Times Washington bureau. Her coverage of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion generated much controversy.[1] A number of stories she wrote while working for The New York Times later were deemed to be inaccurate or simply false by her employers, and she resigned.[2][3][4][5]" Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite Judith Miller, the Times is still a reliable source on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The point of the "Judith Miller" example is that even "reliable" and "verifiable" sources sometimes get it wrong, for one reason or another. Consider the following, again: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june04/nytimes_05-26.html ("The New York Times published a critique of its own reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the editorial board admitted its coverage was flawed and relied too heavily on suspect intelligence sources.") Of course The New York Times is still a reliable source on Wikipedia, as are many other mainstream sources. But "reliable" isn't necessarily "gospel" and good editors will be mindful of this, IMO. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It would seem you are trying to magnify the issue of NY Times regret over their WMD reporting to cast aspersion on reliably sourced information by them or another media outlet describing gang stalking as delusions. When you can find reliable sources documenting gang stalking as a real, widespread phenomenon and not the claims of the delusional you've got something there. In other words I guess it's escaped your grasp that there is considerable information that exists countering the NY Times reporting on WMD. Not so on gang stalking, despite all the attempts by the delusional to advance their group beliefs. However the opportunity to change all of this is easy. Covert video cameras are available for a pittance from ebay or amazon. Document your case and take that to your local news media, I'm sure they would be interested if this is really happening. If the activism is repeatedly focused on advancing the group belief and not the crimes against the individual, the reality of the situation should be obvious to the non delusional. Repeatedly trying to insert this information into this article is a waste of everyone's time. Batvette (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the recent turn of events, the following bears repeating, IMHO: Even "reliable" and "verifiable" sources sometimes get it wrong, for one reason or another. More from Glenn Greenwald, recently, about the NY Times: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/29/speech-nsa-snowden-journalism (refer to speech) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:29, 1 July 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)

It is verifiable that gang stalking, in the sense used at the start of this discussion, exists as a delusion, but not that it exists as a real phenomenon. It is therefore perfectly correct for us to cover it in this way. It is unfortunate that the phrase "gang stalking" has been hijacked by a few believers in a ridiculous conspiracy theory to have this meaning rather than simply that of stalking by several people working together, but we have to work with the language as it is actually used rather than as we would like it to be. If people suffering from the terror of this kind of stalking come to this page, very likely fuelled by the various internet fora on the subject, we are in fact doing them a great service by explaining the fact that there is nothing to be terrified about. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Says Phil Bridger: "If people suffering from the terror of this kind of stalking come to this page, very likely fueled by the various internet fora on the subject, we are in fact doing them a great service by explaining the fact that there is nothing to be terrified about." Repeating: "... the fact that there is nothing to be terrified about." "...we are in fact doing them a great service." (Let me refer readers to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases There was a time when few believed those who were being victimized by priests but, the truth, like cream, eventually rises to the top.) It's fine to seek "reliability" and "verifiability", but some folks are overstepping, for lack of a better word. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone is denying that stalking by groups -- which includes gangs -- is a real thing. The problem is the use of the term "gang stalking" by a very small minority to describe a completely different phenomenon, one typically involving super-secret conspiracies, often equipped with high-tech psychotronic/paranormal weaponry. apparently with vast budgets and unlimited manpower, targeting ordinary people in significant numbers. That these ideas are apparently bizarre and unbelievable by normal standards is not the core issue here -- weird and implausible-sounding things like MKULTRA and even plots involving cats with surgically implanted microphones have actually verifiably happened ([1], [2]) -- although it does make me set my Bayesian prior for belief in such things really rather low -- it's the lack of evidence that both describes this as a real-world phenomenon (not just a belief) and meets Wikipedia's multiple-third-party-reliable-sources evidence standards that is the main problem. The Wikipedia community really don't have it in for "gang stalking" believers, we are just applying the same policies here that we use everywhere else for similar fringe beliefs. See also my, many, many previous comments on this matter.

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)

(Let me refer readers to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases There was a time when few believed those who were being victimized by priests but, the truth, like cream, eventually rises to the top.)

That's a completely useless comparison, unless you could document a number of references by mental health professionals that alleged victims were imagining they were being molested by priests, and had formed self help groups on the internet to encourage others suffering from the same delusions to join them in their self caused ruination for the purpose of validating the delusions as real to save their vanity for friends and family. We know this would be impossible because said allegations always involved a specific priest who was identified and confronted, while gang stalking stories always involve ambiguous alleged participants in their community that "victims" invariably can't or won't identify by video documentation or name-usually demurring toward a labelled group, like Nazis, or Jews, or Satanists, or the military or law enforcement. The Catholic Church did not molest children, individual priests did, and if victims had been too lame to name any of them and instead spent all their time at wiki and elsewhere on the web pushing stories of the Catholic Church molesting children, their allegations would have been likewise dismissed with good cause. Batvette (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Misleading Information

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. 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)

We go by what the reliable sources that do exist say, not by speculation about what unpublished sources might say if the conspiritors would only allow them to be published. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And I must add that the sources for this section were published in 1999, 2004, 2008, 2007, 2008 and 2001. None of them is 20 years old. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying the phenomenon doesn't exist you're an idiot or purposely trying to block the information. If published is the only criteria there are plenty of stuff that can come from Youtube and private blogs on this topic. Just because something was on the news and now can not be found or only found on Youtube doesn't make it any less based in fact than something currently published. The majority of the data and the key data shared is outdated. 1999 does not reflect Gang Stalking today, not even close. It is like explaining current psychological conditions using Freud. Not only is it dishonest but misleading and unethical. Furthermore there is information left out that is needed to be added to the factual side of the phenomenon. As in those who are not mentally disturbed and are victims of this crime that is classified as terrorism. This is no different than taking a 1v1 stalking situation and blaming the victim or saying anyone who is stalked is a conspiracy theorist, delusional, or mentally disturbed. You don't see the problem with this, or are you too busy defending Wikipedia rules you don't see the harm it's causing?! Nakedwelsh (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition if the sources say 70% of all victims of Gang Stalking are mentally delusional then there needs to be a paragraph that addresses the percentage who are not and what it means to be Gang Stalked. That does not need to be sourced as the statistic is already there. This information is key to understanding what Gang Stalking is. Nakedwelsh (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE cyberstalking is clearly spelled out in this article. Gang Stalking and Group Stalking are statistics only and do not described what Gang Stalking even is. This is completely left out of this listing. Nakedwelsh (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cyberstalking[edit]

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.

YouTube and blogs are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. Please review reliable sources and verifiability for appropriate and acceptable sources. If a phenomenon has not been documented in reliable sources or is too recent to have received such coverage, it is not eligible for inclusion, not may it be used to justify removal of material that is derived from reliable published sources. Acroterion (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The only harm here is that produced by various fora on the Internet that encourage people to believe in these delusions, and by the concerted campaign to remove any mention from Wikipedia of "gang stalking", thereby removing a link to reliable information about the topic from near the top of search engine results. You, Nakedwelsh, are contributing to this harm. Yes, many reports of stalking are not delusional, but there is nothing in any of the statistics that you quote to suggest that reports of "gang stalking", in the sense used by conspiracy theorists, are not delusional. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you are sharing your opinions here is irrelevant to victims of a crime. I, Phil Bridger, am trying to share information with the public of an ever increasing criminal activity that is reported by victims as well as the police by legitimate victims of a crime. Please see this Fox News article for your reference . I am not referencing any conspiracy theorist delusions here in which the government is using mind control devices to manipulate the masses nor do I care to. I am however bringing up the phenomenon whereby a networked group of people target an individual either in a work or personal setting in order to defame and generally harass said target. If you are saying the aforementioned government related spin offs are untrue I have no argument there, but if you are saying that groups do not harass individuals I would again refer you to the law enforcement officer in the article sourced who says he is well familiar with the phenomenon and that neither of our opinions matter outside of his. You seem to be confusing the conspiracy theory of Gang Stalking with the factual stalking activity of a group targeting an individual. We can agree that those with hard core conspiracy theory conditions need treatment, and I would hope we could also agree that victims of stocking need information and support to overcome their attackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For which you need to provide appropriate sourcing that it is an "ever increasing criminal activity." A single report on a local news station accompanied by your editorializing is not such sourcing. We don't use primary sources, such as the opinions of individual law enforcement personnel. Please follow Wikipedia protocol to try to develop a consensus based on multiple, independent, reliable sources. The burden is on the proposer of alterations to articles to convince other editors that the changes are relevant, supported by sourcing and in proportion to the topic. Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I will post my article here then first. You mention it is not backed by a reputable source. Fox News last time I checked qualifies as this, and most definitely a reputable police officer who handles the cases is. Are you saying Fox News is not a reliable source? Or further the police officer they interviewed? Here is my article please review for your records:

Gang Stalking

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 would also reference this page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee which one could argue anyone who follows this belief also needs mental help. In this article there is no evidence that a Humanzee even exists yet lots of allegations and explanations are made. If you are blocking Gang Stalking based on this theory then please explain the allowance of these other "conspiracy theories" on the site. The blocking of the crime of Gang Stalking, not the conspiracy theory, is blatantly unethical and you are hurting victims of stalking by doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talk • contribs) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the addition here comes back to errors of fact. The news story you cited did not indicate that the victim sold his home or moved. Other editors have expressed a concern about whether one police officer's interpretation is valid outside the local community, but that's a matter of interpretation, not outright misrepresentation; claiming the victim moved when he was only thinking about it is misrepresenting the source. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and please address the concerns that I and other editors have raised about your proposed additions to this article. Barek has clearly explained his actions and his concerns about your proposed edit on his talkpage. You have provided no evidence for more than a single, rather dubious event - the source is ambiguous about whether the events really happened as the victim relates, and it certainly doesn't warrant or support a paragraph on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So what if it's one event, it's one event that made it to the news. How many events are there for Humanzees? Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory show? The officer says clearly that it exists and has been going on since before the age of FB, or Wikipedia, here just watch: http://vimeo.com/63044954 There is no factual reference to the Humanzee page either yet it is still up. The existence of Gang Stalking sure does warrant a listing on Wikipedia. Whether you want to leave out the conspiracy theories or not the crime of group stalking should be listed. By not covering it you are doing a disservice to the victims of the crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Federal Law that covers it. Is Cornell University accredited enough for you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Matter of fact it is partially covered under "Mobbing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing When most mention Gang Stalking that is what they are talking about. There should be a sentence in that article about other names for Mobbing. Such as Gang Stalking, Group Stalking, Community Stalking. Sound good? Nakedwelsh (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Humanzee, whatever it is, and don't intend to - it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. Please confine your remarks to this subject. You need to support your assertion that gang stalking is a significant, documented phenomenon in reputable independent media, using something more than a single anecdote. Note that mobbing is associated with harassment by groups of coworkers or acquaintances, not by strangers, so they're not direct equivalents. Acroterion (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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)

More about gang stalking

"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)

This article defines stalking as "unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person". The claimed phenomenon described as "gang stalking" certainly fits that definition, so this is an appropriate article in which to cover it. Why are you so worried about search engine results? Surely it is better that people searching for information about gang stalking should be able to find some reliably sourced factual information about the topic to counteract the delusional misinformation that also appears in web searches? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely clear from the WP:RS evidence that stalking, in the ordinary sense, can be an activity taken by both individuals and groups, including gangs. Thus, taking the term at its literal meaning, it should point at this article, which contains the useful information that (a) people can indeed be stalked by gangs and other groups as well as individuals, and (b) this is different from the construct of "gang stalking" proposed by conspiracy theorists, with its elements of massive organized conspiracy by shadowy entities with state-actor levels of resources and access to cutting-edge persecution technologies unknown to current science.

I've often wondered whether the conspiracy theorists have ever considered that their theories require that large, and therefore necessarily bureaucratic, organizations must have chosen to allocate budgets in the millions of dollars per year (teams of persecutors operating in multiple shifts, their equipment, technical support for the above, organizational overhead, etc.) devoted to the sole purpose of driving them individually mad, instead of the much cheaper and more brutal options that a malign entity might otherwise choose to deploy against them, even assuming such a group existed and desired to harm them? Or that these supposed operations are sufficiently cruel to drive them mad, but never vicious enough to stop them from talking to others or posting on the Internet about it? -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the people who talk about gang stalking have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, a brain disease that disrupts the ability to think clearly. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Many are, clearly, in the dark about this topic. For balance, the following material might be helpful to some readers:

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)

That long quote is probably a copyright violation, and in any case he is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I shortened the quotation considerably and will revisit the copyright issue again, within the next few days, to ensure compliance with Wiki policies. To be clear about attribution, the quotation is from an article written by John B. Lopes, Private Investigator, titled "Gang Stalking." (Again, here is the link to the article: http://www.theagencyinc.net/true_stories/gangstalking.pdf ) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

John Lopes' article and views have been included on the talk page to provide balance, as indicated in my first comment. Of course, he's not a reliable source for the article -- I'm well aware of that fact. But, as an experienced investigator with knowledge of the crime of gang stalking, his opinion is as valid as any of the others on this talk page, if not more so, IMO. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Make no mistake, this is a vicious crime". So vicious it would seem, that nobody claiming to be a victim of it can be bothered to spend a few dollars on a camera and provide documentation of anything other than their own paranoid delusions. (to be sure some have bought cameras and have populated YouTube with hours of their delusions) As usual the agenda seems to be merely establishing that "gang stalking" is a phenomena which is widespread and happening to others so that people can turn to wikipedia for validation of their claims. Gang Stalking cannot be supported as a real phenomenon by reliable sources, but paranoid people sharing their distorted realities with others and fueling their own psychological ruin can. The latter remains the tone of content here until the former has reliable sources. Elizabeth, you obviously strongly believe in this, don't you think it would be a better use of your energies to document it personally through video or other record than promote the conspiracy theories of complete strangers? If you can get your case brought to court that would be a good first step toward reliably sourced information that could be entered here at wikipedia.

As for the source, that is some good stuff. By 1985, armed with a .38, solid professional experience, and a dream, John decided to step out on his own. That year, he launched his own L.A. based private investigation firm, THE AGENCY INC., investigating insurance fraud.... And we're provided with his own site's glowing editorial for a reference? It was what we wanted to hear so it was good enough?Batvette (talk) 06:44, 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)

Made a few changes to help improve the article's encyclopedic tone

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)

Agreed. Getting the input of some "experienced editors from law-related Wikipedia projects" is an excellent idea. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of properly sourced information

(Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStalking&diff=577335073&oldid=576349645.) One should not be able to simply erase entire sections of talk pages. It simply isn't necessary. Eliminate the truly personal attacks and leave the rest. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:47, 18 October 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)

As I stated earlier (refer to first comment, above), simply "eliminate the truly personal attacks and leave the rest." The remainder of the material should be retained. This has absolutely nothing to do with any one editor -- it's simply bad "policy"/procedure, IMO, to strike entire sections of dialogue. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If I removed the personal attacks and the discussion about them there would be little left. We aren't talking about just a few lines here. His entire argument was formed upon maligning other editors and then saying this should negate our ability to edit. I have the consensus of the other editor who was maligned and it's not upon my shoulders to spend a lot of my time editing immature comments of others to find the few bits of substance to retain. Note your linked wiki policy states (when it's appropriate to remove others' comments) Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. Instructing it is appropriate to remove entire posts which include personal attacks and not simply edit the attacks out. Following this is it is certainly appropriate to remove mine and Phil's entire replies to his attack posts which have been removed. Also, since none of the comments were yours I feel no obligation to explain this action to you, which is also brought up in that policy-if the comments were yours you would have a legitimate complaint of course. If you feel I am out of line take it to a higher power. Kthxgbye. Batvette (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently added material

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)

Oh, yeah, that edit was the classic summary of the conspiracy theory that consistently tries to make its way onto this page- that one even included the further gem of a suggestion that everyone else on the internet that claims a similar story is crazy or part of the conspiracy against me, but my claims are real. It will return again. Batvette (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

false accusations

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 agree that most of the section should be deleted, but I doubt that you'll get much support. (Your view merits serious consideration, IMO.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:42, 10 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)

Since your long history of trying to introduce these conspiracy theories into this article using sock puppet accounts and other lowbrow tactics is well documented on this page, it's a mystery why you think injecting opinions that sections long ago approved by editorial consensus are "garbage" is helpful to the article. You're merely showing you haven't changed a bit and are waiting on the sidelines for any chance to reintroduce material that endless numbers of cranks have tried to sneak in here in order to validate their delusions and get others to share them. Batvette (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Readers should refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stalking/Archive_1#References_to_FOIA_material. Said "FOIA material"(two reports) was rejected because the reports haven't been officially published. These reports, produced by the U.S. Department of Justice, drill down on information contained in the DOJ's report on stalking. Links to the reports were posted to the stalking page and rejected because, to date, they haven't been officially published. In the meantime, anyone who wishes to see the documents can get them by email: 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 ) I have no interest in gobbledygook -- my only interest is in the facts. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what this has to do with discussion of this article. Are those the documents that you used a sock puppet account to load RFC voting on to introduce?Batvette (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, posting relevant FOIA documents – documents created by the U.S. Department of Justice – documents that provide more information about stalking by teams or groups – is such a subversive act. What treachery! And to have had the audacity to collaborate with another editor in posting them! Sockpuppets! Hang them both! (: Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the blog page of the "other editor" you "collaborate" with. http://gangstalkingismurder.wordpress.com/hallmarks-of-the-program/ Since this "other" person you were found to be using the account of as a sock puppet appears to be an extreme conspiracy theorist with an agenda of reinforcing his gangstalking delusions across the internet it's not obvious how bringing "them" into the discussion proves your agenda isn't trying to introduce these same ridiculous delusions/conspiracy theories here. Batvette (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

One might wonder about your agenda, batvette, given your propensity to repetitively respond as you do. I see a reference to "gang stalking" in an early version of your user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABatvette&diff=339915542&oldid=243796768 And there's this, as well: http://fightgangstalking.com/ffchs-a-disinformation-group/ (Read carefully.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate (without the use of sock puppet accounts) on what relevance your post has toward improving the article. It is rather peculiar the second reference you provided is the same page that contained text that was added to the article by anonymous user 68.61.145.169. Is Elizabeth up to the same old tricks? Batvette (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I would encourage you to look at your own comments, Batvette. Furthermore, I would suggest that you avail yourself of the options that are available to reveal sock puppetry and the like. Of course that would be too easy. And I doubt that you, or the other boys here, would like the answer. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly asked you to no avail what relevance your line of discussion has toward improving the article, I invite you and all your sock puppets to familiarize yourself with Wiki policy on talk pages in the hopes someday you and yours will positively contribute to the discussion or article. Hope springs eternal.

Furthermore, I would suggest that you avail yourself of the options that are available to reveal sock puppetry and the like.

This sock puppet investigation was done about 2 years ago? and the result of which was the conclusion by wiki admin you were posting under multiple user names to stack the voting on an RFC regarding the very material you're still droning on about above. Why you desire to be shown to be guilty again isn't clear. Personally you're just not significant enough for me to waste my time and wikis trying to catch you doing something again. Why not just don't do it in the first place? The fact I brought it up again is quite justifiable since it's hardly a coincidence you and this other ISP ID editor just happened along the same obscure conspiracy theorist blog and just happened to both use it for reference, is it? Was that what the rock artist Sting was singing about in "synchronicity"? TWO conspiracy theorists on the opposite side of the world just stumbled upon that little blog and thought- within days of each other, post it as a reference here? Does that follow Occams razor, or is the more plausible theory Elizabeth Blandra is using multiple accounts again? Batvette (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Batvette wrote, "Why you desire to be shown to be guilty again isn't clear. Personally you're just not significant enough for me to waste my time and wikis trying to catch you doing something again." And that's why Batvette posts a response to nearly every comment that I've ever made. The tools are available on Wikipedia, Batvette -- I would suggest that you (or someone else) use them. But you won't. Because you wouldn't like the answer. And as your edit count reflects, you're a whole lot of talk and not much action. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a FACT that you have been proven by a Wiki checkuser investigation to be using sock puppet accounts to stack RFC voting in the past. Why do you insist other editors need to prove you guilty AGAIN and TROLL with provocative taunts like you're a whole lot of talk and not much action? I've repeatedly asked you what your posts have to do with improving the article, your attempts to instigate a fight suggest you may be becoming a problem editor- and what business of yours is my edit count? Do you have an obsession over me? With your earlier reference I can only conclude you are stalking me on the internet. Batvette (talk) 09:52, 30 June 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.