From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search material[edit]

I have re-removed the material credited to the 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 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 (talkcontribs) - 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[edit]

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)[]
Please see the page Zersetzung for more information on professional group stalking of individuals. Not only is it a well known and researched method, it has been documented as employed by multiple governments around the world. The fact that this is omitted from this page is a severe disservice to truth. (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Gang stalking has popped up again[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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 (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: ("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: ("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: (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 (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: 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 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[]

(Let me refer readers to the following: 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[edit]

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>,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)[]

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)[]

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 <ref></ref>. 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

I would also reference this page on Wikipedia: 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 (talkcontribs) 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: 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 (talkcontribs) 22:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[]
Here is the Federal Law that covers it. Is Cornell University accredited enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedwelsh (talkcontribs) 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[]
Matter of fact it is partially covered under "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)[]
What's all this about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

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[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs)

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." (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 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: ) 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:

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[edit]

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[edit]

(Refer to 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. ( 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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 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; (FOIA Contact is Dorothy Lee; 810 7th St., NW, Room 5400, Washington, DC 20531; 202-307-0790; E-mail: ) 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. 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: And there's this, as well: (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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:28, 23 July 2014‎

The material is adequately sourced to good-quality third party reliable sources. Removing material that is reliably sourced just because you find it offensive is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Neutrality Disputed[edit]

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)[]

Looks like in his work he only cites himself as a source for his claims? I dont speak French so cant really comment on the rest of the content but it doesnt seem he is notable or prolific as a criminologist- not enough to reference himself. The "perspective" as introduced also seems disjointed. Is he saying authorities are stalkers?
It needs to be cleared up, proven as a reliable reference and the reference should be something we can make use of on English wiki.Batvette (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Okay so I did find one of his reports hosted online in English and my recollection (that he merely referenced his own past work) was in error. However I did read most of it and frankly while I'm trying to keep an open mind about it there are seriously glaring issues with the whole premise of the work and I wonder, since it is considered a research publication how was it received by his colleagues or subscribers?
Here are some problems.
First yes he does have references. I dont think virtually any of them endorse his premise. He uses a reference to bolster this or that claim about a different crime or matter... cites the reference... then goes on to launch into the netherworld of unsubstantiated accusations against police and military and corporations and their culpability being widespread... solely on the claims of alleged victims.
Thats absurd. Most self claimed TIs dont know the people they allege to be involved and have yet to document any offenses by uniformed police by video or other means.
He cant even level charges against any individual policeman. Its all "nudge nudge wink wink we know theyre all in on it."
Since police make up a significant part of the readership will he blame gangstalking for him not having his work ever published again (if thats the case)
Finally hes a criminologist yet is discussing a crime thats not a crime and he doesnt cite any criminal cases or investigations?
The conclusion here is not clear... is he a criminologist gone off the deep end who is convinced this is a widespread phenomenon but is so intent on validating his own paranoia as reality that he threw professionalism out the window and wrote such a sloppy paper?
Or is he like Ted Gunderson where it could be that but much more likely cruelly pulling some legs for laughs and a quick buck?
This reference needs all due scrutiny before being accepted by consensus. Its just telling a few people what they want to hear. Or could be another thing...the possibility that the underlying core of what gangstalking is described as really has a kernal of truth to it.. but is absolutely impossible to be on the scale described by the paranoid delusional which probably comprise 9 of 10 self claimed victims.
So they magnify it with a xxxxstorm of false claims and disinformation and there arent 3000 stalkers in every city on 30 or 300 victims. There are 3 stalkers on 3 actual victims and they only have to do one thing to them about once a month.
The disinfo does the rest. To the 3 real victims and 300 fools who indulge in their own self ruination. Could be the case and one thing is undeniable.. to the schizophrenic no program has to acconplish all these things they claim. It would merely have to convince them it can and their own minds would do everything for them.Batvette (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Zersetzung: Proper term for "gangstalking" with the intent to cause psychological harm[edit]

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. (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[]

So am I right in thinking that your thesis is that "gangstalking", as widely reported, largely consists of Zersetzung-style state operations, and not, for example, the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia or other delusions? Of course, we know both are real things which exist (as is gaslighting commited by individuals, and simple stalking by groups without attempts at gaslighting), but all the citable evidence we have at the moment suggests that false reports and delusions vastly outnumber real gaslighting-type experiences. Can you cite any reliable sources to back up your assertions? -- The Anome (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Requests rewording and linking[edit]

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)[]

Slasher-horror films[edit]

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)[]

This section is a real survivor…[edit]

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)[]

  • I'm going to respond here to all the issues listed above. I would favor removing the sentence/paragraph about FAVS, because that term has not been taken up in the literature even though the book is 14 years old. The rest of the material in the section is appropriate for this article and appropriately sourced. The consensus in the medical and legal community is that people with paranoid schizophrenia frequently believe they are being stalked, and that these delusions account for a substantial percentage of stalking allegations. This article would be incomplete if it did not report that consensus. Looie496 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I see, thank you. I removed the paragraph about FAVS, and I understand the relevance of the false allegations report... but I'm still not sure about the inclusion of conspiracy theories with only two sources available and with such bold claims, cherry-picked by the editor of this sections. Please see the points above. :) UnluckyClover77 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Actually the way that whole section had been arrived at was not a cherry picking by one editor but a long process with a number of editors. A lot of push and pull going on but a few important things seemed to be agreed upon. Including that this page not be used by people with mental issues to promote their beliefs. That, and as of this date it remains the case, gang stalking could not be a documentable phenomenon by reliable sources, so a gang stalking page could not exist either. (Similar things do exist like gaslighting and mobbing and have articles)Lastly that what could be documented was that experts have determined gang stalking claims are generally attributable to mental illness and the internet has been birth to a lot of it. I do agree that some issues in the article need to be seperated. To directly address your concerns, gang stalking IS a conspiracy theory, and the sources provided are impeccable. No opposing view sources exist of that caliber, and in this editor's opinion the reason there aren't more is because most publications don't want to be bombarded by the crazies who protest. See the comments on the article. Batvette (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Thanks for your response. I didn't mean the sources were cherry-picked (They're actually the only ones I've seen available), what I meant is that the conclusion driven from them on this article was leaning toward a specific idea, even though the sources were rather fair... Also, which issues exactly do you think need to be "separated"? And if gang stalking is a conspiracy theory, doesn't it belong better on the conspiracy theory page? On THIS page, we have already established the fact most stalking reports are false, which seems more than enough if you ask me. On a side note, even if we're a 100% certain that someone is mentally ill, I'm sure everyone would benefit if you show a little sensitivity to the subject, because either way it wouldn't be their fault, you know...UnluckyClover77 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Typically wikipedia requires a reliable source to support content introduced into an article. There is no requirement for the article to contain some kind of summary reflecting the entire contents of the reliable source, nor ensure that the content from the reliable source reflects a balanced view of the issue discussed in the article.

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)[]

  • "Those articles do not support or document that gang stalking is a real phenomenon". Then why are they here? The point I keep bringing up and you keep avoiding is that this wikipedia article already makes it clear most stalking reports are false. Why mention gang stalking when it's not a real phenomenon and is not even a popularized or academic term for a false phenomenon? Why discuss a conspiracy theory that was never studied and was never adapted into popular culture just because two opinion pieces on the entire world wide web happens to make fun of them? Fair or not? Also, if sources on wikipedia are not required to be balanced, then how on Earth are they reliable? I find that rather disheartening, but you seem to be well-read into the subject, so I can't complain. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2015 (UbTC)

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)[]

  • I'm sorry, but if you don't want someone to include unverifiable information about a conspiracy theory to this article, then place a warning on the talk page saying so. Don't use two opinion pieces to cite something that is so poorly researched and unsubstantial to the article, just to shut them up. I'm genuinely hoping that you have another (good) reason to do so. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • LOL, you must be new here. First I am not the one who created the content in the first place so it is silly you are trying to instruct me what I should or shouldn't do. Second and more importantly did you miss where I informed you that this part of the article is the result of a long series of pushing and pulling by various editors and its appearance now is the result of editorial consensus? So you come along and don't like what you see, well imposing your view is going to be over the work of about a dozen people who came to agreement that it could stand as it is.

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)[]

  • First of all; yes, I am new here, and I respect every attempt anyone makes to inform me of the usual policies being used (and I think I have done so throughout this conversation). Second; by you, I don't mean "you", I mean anyone and everyone who reads this, and is taking part in editing this page; third, I'm not "imposing my view", I'm sharing it as respectfully as I can just like everyone else does, that's why they have a talk page. Fourth; last time I checked, Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE WHO READS IT... just because various editors made an article look a certain way, doesn't mean that other editors shouldn't try to improve it by starting discussions, and I did improve it when another user agreed I should remove the FAVs part. Fifth; there's a good reason why ad hominem comments are frowned upon, and no, they shouldn't be said. Sixth; my "basic disagreement" is NOT that the idea of gangstalking is ridiculed, my "basic disagreement" is that it is mentioned here in the first place; there doesn't seem to be any verifiable sources that claim it as a popular term or a subject of study; two opinion pieces can't do that. Seventh; removing unverifiable information doesn't reinforce anyone's beliefs, it just makes this website more reliable. Eighth; if it is verifiable that "paranoid conspiracy theorists believe they are being stalked by groups of people", feel free to search for a relevant source and cite it here. I wouldn't mind. On the contrary, you'd be doing everyone a favor. Ninth; I believe I've said this before, but I do not appreciate the stigmatizing of psychiatric patients, and finally; even though "you" did not create this content, "you" chose to have an opposing position to mine, "you" made assumptions about my intent and accordingly "you" misinterpreted my position. Please stop hiding behind other editors' claims and stand up to yours. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I guess you're not the same person whose first wiki edit was on the microwave auditory effect page, adding "alleged to be" to "suffering from auditory hallucinations"?

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)[]

  • Well, yes. I said I was new here. People have to start somewhere. The microwave auditory effects page is citing the same conspiracy theory nonsense that I find to be very un-encyclopedic (And yes, like all other new editors I had the impression I could just go there and edit it, apparently that's not the case. Sorry!). Also, these sources are not even enough to say that something is dismissed by doctors because they are OPINION PIECES and they don't cite any research, I just didn't notice that back then (Nobody seems to notice that either, I just knew that several things were very wrong with them, turns out they were just presenting the writers' opinions. I'm a college student and I know if I cite something like that they would have my head for it, that's all XD). The fact I'm interested in the topic and find the source unreliable doesn't mean I have an agenda (People who have agendas don't correct spelling mistakes on two different wikis). If you have scientific research, please present it, if you don't, I already presented my solution which is to remove the conspiracy-blah-blah I believe should not be in any self-respecting publication that is meant as a source of info. (But that's my opinion). If you don't find a source, and you don't agree with my opinion (and also still think I have an agenda), then please have a tall glass of water and chill because then I won't edit this page -or anything related to it- again ever. I'm not patronizing you! Why are you the one making personal attacks and then freaking out when I try to respond? UnluckyClover77 (talk) 10:50, 21 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)[]

More useful cite sources for "gang stalking" section[edit]

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)[]

Scientology Remini tv series - Organize Stalking[edit]

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 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Question about gang stalking/group stalking/modern lynching[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ingress stalking[edit]

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". Retrieved 9 November 2017.

kencf0618 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[]

Seems to me we don't need an article section for every time somebody uses the word "stalking" to describe a new technique in a game or hobby. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020[edit]

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 can see several problems with this:
  1. Is this a reliable source? It certainly doesn't look like one.
  2. What you say appears to only apply to certain jurisdictions. Whether stalking is a crime, and how that crime is defined, differ between jurisdictions.
  3. You have not been explicit about where you want this text to be placed.
Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[]
Closing edit request, the source is a self-published source, would be good to point to a better source for this claim. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[]

New gang stalking article[edit]

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)[]