Talk:Stalking/Archive 1

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

message: I'm going to be editing this article shortly (basically, once I've found where my references are in the mess I call my apartment), because it's disproportionately attentive to obsessional celebrity stalkers and gives dismayingly short shrift to the domestic violence/abusive relationship stalking that comprises the vast majority of stalking, and leads to the majority of stalking-related homicides.  Anyway, just announcing that, and inviting anyone else to join me in this endeavor.  The Literate Engineer 05:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've hived this off to List of stalked celebrities. Rorybowman 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting Celebrity Bias

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

message: Is it just me, or does this article suggest that Princess Diana was killed by stalkers?  Is that a POV declaration that the author believes the papparazzi killed her?  Rhesusman 22:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted the note "disputed" in a reference to the Princess Diana incident. Mission9801 04:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Diana 

message: It would probably help to distinguish between stalking (implies an unauthorized individual is doing stalking) and political persecution (where the authorities are doing the "stalking"). Fplay 05:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is an article on persecution. Good thinking though, I added a link to persecution to the article. Izehar 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Put another way: There are several references to "persecution" situations on this page, in an off-topic manner.  They should be moved to the persecution page. Fplay 22:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense, but isn't there some overlap between the two? Izehar 22:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Just changed the "or other cases of unrequited love" to "cases of unrequited love" because, if a stalker is following a former lover, then the lover most probably knows that the stalker is in love with them.  It's not a secret.
:I've restored it. "Unrequited" doesn't mean secret - it means unreturned or unreciprocated. See American Heritage Dictionary. 86.140.109.221 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalking a former lover isn't unrequited love

message: Is this really notable? As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation I don't think the opening sentences are the place for the following paragraph:
<BLOCKQUOTE>:In Toltecs learning, stalking is defined as follows: "Stalking is quite simply a type of manipulation that is carried out with the express purpose of getting the other person to do what you want him or her to do but so that you will both benefit from that act. Ordinarily, plain manipulation means forcing another person into doing your bidding for your own self-centred gain, but at the other person's expense. However, stalking means getting the other person to co-operate with you intelligently, so that both of you can benefit, and therefore win." (from This Darned Elusive Happiness by Theun Mares)</BLOCKQUOTE>
While all this is very interesting, I don't think it belongs here. Perhaps it should go into an article of its own, in Toltecs or Toltec (Castaneda). At the outside I can see some sort of "other views" subheading way down below or within game stalker but this seems to me fiction trivia (as an aside from Carlos Castaneda's Journey to Ixtlan) and irrelevant to this article which is primarily about the crime. My initial bold inclination is to remove it and discuss it here, but I'll await other input. - Rorybowman 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment. -Will Beback 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed also. File it under Toltec (Castaneda) or Nagual to make it clear that it's a Castenada neologism, and little to do with the historical Toltecs. 86.140.109.221 11:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole top of the page is too large. Perhaps it should be moved into Stalk (disambiguation)? -Super Sam 12:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. -Will Beback 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toltecs? 

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

message: I was just curious to know why there is resistance at Wikipedia to include the issue of gang stalking on this page or anywhere else?  It is very, very common for a stalker to enlist the help of others in their harassment of an individual.  Government conspiracies aside, this is a real problem and not a new one.  Rejected suitors who become stalkers will often enlist their friends to help them harass their target.  Lawsuits involving controversial issues often inspire gang stalking towards plaintiffs and defendants alike.  (After Lois Jenson filed her lawsuit against Eveleth Mines--the inspiration for the movie North Country--you better believe she was gang stalked.)  This is a phenomenon we all have seen as early as elementary school when groups of kids gang up on one who is seen as weak, usually chronically harassing them. So, why isn't this issue seen as "real?"  68.92.198.61 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the issue is whether it is real or not, but as a crime that would be Conspiracy (crime) and not stalking. The issue on Wikipedia, as I understand it, has to do with the way in which this subject was in appropriately inserted at one point, over and over again, as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. Perhaps in a year or so someone else can address the issue, but for now the issue is closed and probably will be for some time to come. Attempts to reinsert the issue here would (unfortunately) probably be seen as vandalism. - Rorybowman 20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why resistance about inclusion of gang stalking?

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

message: I've never heard or read that his poisoning had anything to do with being stalked (I'm pretty sure the consensus is that he was poisoned by political opponents).  I'm replacing him, as an example of someone attacked by a stalker, with John Lennon, which is pretty much universally accepted.  That said, if I'm wrong about Yushchenko, then by all means, put him back.
My rain face 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that -- I misread the initial sentence to distinguish it from the one above it (re: violent attacks on victims of stalking) which used John Lennon as an example.  I still don't think that Yushchenko is a legitimate example, though, so I replaced it with the Reagan assassination attempt which is known to have been committed by a stalker of Jodie Foster's (apparently he didn't know to distinguish between the actress and her character in Taxi Driver.)  I'm not sure how to put links in here (I'm guessing it's not standard html) but here's a source:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande02.html My rain face 20:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yushchenko. . .? 

message: Hey.  Allot of unproven information is in this article.  Please site a source that "stalkers prosecute their victims" "stalkers accuse the victim of mental disability".  I doubt any accepted case involving a conviction of stalking exist having these attributes based on my readings.
I'm complaining that this article strays from what is historically law, and what is accusation of what isn't wished for that isn't prosecutable.  And I complain the article tends to demonize things that aren't bad, and tends to create panic over normal things, and is one more of many articles suggesting a method of retribution during breakups.  And may be a form of feminisim / male hate.
There are a ton of "how to convict your male of stalking without proof of injury" and "what the law should be on exiting a relationship so a female can control and punish in the exiting" pages on the internet.  But they aren't law in US or elsewhere.  And shouldn't be.
I've read allot of cases.  Convicted stalkers, statistically, are mostly threatening (which is illegal with or without a stalking law) - and otherwise are mentally unfit people doing crazy enough things to cause fear (harassment).  Also occasionally a stalking conviction is due to failing to comply to a restraining order issued to prevent a specific nuisance action (tort law) - like continual unconsented contact that grows to a nuisance level and is unreasonable (for which a restraining order can be issued).
I feel the "stalking charge" is a legal device for typifying the defendants character before evidence or arguement is given to prove character.  There are already good laws making injury, harrassment, and continual nuisance illegal.  Stalking is a late comer adding nothing new, and no new penalties.  To me "stalking talk" seems an effort to typify what wemen hate or fear about relationships with men and provide a way for them to punish men.
Furthermore, the article demonizes typical failures in relationship that typically have resolution - like contact after she says it's ended - which is typical of angry females to create such situation.
The article also demonizes the inept or disturbed males who are non injurous - who may deserve compassion for inability or disability - saying a stalker would be like that so they will become stalkers - a logical falicy and a defamation of those who are innocent of injurous actions.
Please look to history (immense collections of famed love letters) to find the context of love suitors and love letters et al.  They are sometimes successful - sometimes not - never have been illegal - shouldn't be demonized by people who "have a feeling they are being followed and fear it".  Love is crazy.  It should be allowed.  Many attempts at love historically haven't been quite sain, accepted by the receiver at first, and so on :)  YET!  Many stalking rants suggest love letters shoudl be made illegal unless they are "pre-accepted".
Finally.  Spying isn't illegal :)  And usually speech or movement isn't either.  But cheating on your loved one is.  If you cheat on your mate they have a right to know and pretty much figure you aren't going to volunteer the info.  Shame on you!
Please stick to the facts.  "Stalking" in most states is a serious charge involving injury or threated injury that can convict with imprisonment (the ultimate removal of all human rights freedom guarunteed by the UN) and no judge imprisons because of difficulties in breakups.  Something bad, illegal, must occur for a judge to have jurisdiction in a "typical love dispute / breakup".
People who suggest "stalking is whenenver a woman is uncomfortable" are actually WHY some states will not accept stalking laws: it's because some stalking law advocates wish to make illegal any effort to mend / create love: which any reasonable person knows is crazy.  They tend to make illegal whatever a woman wishes to punish a male with - even his alleged thoughs.
How many movies show a guy trying to create love unsucessfully throughout the movie to end up gaining it at the end ?  This is what the stalking laws the fanatics propose would make illegal (if unintentionally).  And - it would jeopardize those seeking love to be *afraid* of abusive people who would use the laws retributionally or coldly without reason and compassion.
Allowing a female to control males by stating when an arguement / love attempt is over (unconsented communication) is ... you guessed it ... a hot topic in freedom of speech.  Dissalowing free speech allows abusive people to limit arguements to one side by use of legal force - which is currently illegal.  It would allow anyone to control speech of others with legal tricks - and allow all kinds of abuses to go unchallenged.  (remember we're excluding speech of threats - which have always been illegal)
On the other hand :)  Wooing should have limits.  When is too much become a nuisance?  That's been a civl court matter I beleive (not criminal).  But no one has set a limit to love.  All this talk of "stalking" and failed lovers.  No one has suggested fair rules to wooing for anyone to follow.  And not fair: "once I say what you should do you have to do it or go to jail 'cause I make the laws (note the threat imbibed with guns and capture - the charge of stalking threatens the accused)".  Thing is...  There are responsibilites of both loved ones in exiting a relationship.  A "hang up" isn't responsible.  A threat of jail isn't responsible.  Nor, of course, threats otherwise.  Yes - reasonable communication works - and that's why *most* people get along and don't complain.  They communicate.
Note I know some men are predators (and that some wemen are evil in their typical ways) - and laws exist about that already :)
The good I see in the stalking law is that makes illegal the kind of unexplained following that becomes abnormal  (which amazingly hadn't been illegal per say - except under nuisance law).  This protects women from potentially mad people - where before some wemen were turned away by police who didn't know how to act because they didn't know if it was criminal.  HOWEVER - such people are rare (mad people, dumb police) - looking to conviction statistics it's plain rare.  I strongly suggest most "stalking" cases fit well under existing laws (threats, harrassment, phone, etc) and that allot of web pages promoting fear and illegalism of anything a woman points her finger at are unproductive and even harmful rantings - which even prevent states from adopting stalking laws.
Personally I've never followed.  But I hear it is human nature to try it here or there and is sometimes meant to satisfy legitimate questions one can't just ask or is afraid to.  Of course: I'd find it unnerving after a few times and would want a stop put to it with restraining order there after (unless it was my love doing it - talk time).  Me?  I'd call and talk it over first if it was an aquaintence who followed.  I'm a sucker that way.
I suggest people communicate and try to see eye to eye.  Use mediators if they can't communicate fairly with each other / hang ups / argues.  Obtain restraining orders if all else fails (no criminal conviction) and, lastly, let the judge do their thing if the restraining order is broken.  I don't suggest abusing court time with relationship woes unless there are real reasons - not just wishes, characterisations, vandetas / retributions, suspicions - but a mad person on the loose (very rare) / a broken restraining order / an immedate threat (that wasn't a heat of the moment threat made by a loud-mouth).
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.219.179 (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalking? What is illegal by fact, What is human rights (ie free speech), What is wooing ? 

message: While there is exclusive literature about the mental state and psychological problems of the stalking victim, I think the same should be contributed to that of the stalker.
Psychology of, in particular, obsessional stalking, has not been researched much and I think this should also be noted and that the DSM has failed to yield any answers for the mental condition and diagnosis of stalkers besides the disorder, erotomania ( in which a delusion has to be present).
:That actually isn't true.  Mullen and Meloy have both research the psychology of stalkers.  Not surprisingly, there is a high rate of borderline and narcissistic personality disorders amongst them. 70.237.27.111 17:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology And Mental Health Of The Stalker 

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

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

message: "The stalking may be so subtle that the victim may not even aware that it is happening". Should that be "may not even be aware that"? Is there a verb 'aware' that I'm not ... you know ... aware of? (English is not my native language.) Suede 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, you are right. Thanks for the heads up. Aine63 22:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing word?

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

message: Many of the types of stalker given describe almost all people in accidental interaction with each other. The article does state that not all types of stalking are malicious, but it keeps a consistent tone of disgust towards stalkers, denigrating them as dangerous individuals even if they are just as harmless as anyone else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragodon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm worried I could become a stalker. What can I do to avoid it? I have few spells of such ardent lucidity as I am experiencing now. --79.66.98.65 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recommend you get psychiatric help before you commit a state or federal offense (wherever place or country you live in) or actually stalk or harrass someone. However, maybe the other person refuses to associate with you (is the other person male or female?) and it's best to leave that person alone for now on. I don't know if you already knew this person as an acquintescene for a short period of time, but you became fixated or desire to meet them.    
I also believe how the definition of stalking or harrassment is from interchangable social cues here in North America (I'm in Southern Cal. the U.S.) changed in the late 20th century in regards to courting and social relationships. The old medieval act of male chivalry when a male follows a desired love to her castle or villa was favorable to the woman in most cases during the 1500s, but by today's standards to do that "following her to her home" thing is basically called stalking, deemed emotionally harmful to women (esp. feminists, sexual abuse activists and "P-C ness" adds in the moral panic of "sexual predators") and ruled illegal, thus one should think on how to pursue his object of attraction. + Mike D 26 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Judgement? 

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

message: This section is ridiculous. These worthless titles take as much place as the actual prose! Please, trim, or delete, it soon. I would gladly remove it all, but someone would probably revert that. No idea why. And, I seriously mean it. When a newcomer to Wikipedia reads this article, I know what would he think: „What? Is that all what Wiki has to offer? Do they have to resort to such fillers? Is this the point of writing articles?” :/ 83.31.251.186 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more.  I was also tempted to do it myself, but sure that doing so would just spark a revert war.  74.137.111.227 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the section is gone. Thanks, The Anome. :) 83.31.236.219 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalking in media and literature 

message: Ok, so, a scenario here, based on what is included in this article: Say a 13 or 14 year old boy takes a friends cell phone and retrieves the number of his "soul-mate", hence the article, and attempts to call her, but retrieves the number without her consent. Are you saying that this kid is a stalker? Today, this word is over-used and abused, and I think that the article should be edited to reflect this overuse of the word, as I believe that the word should not be taken as seriously in that manner (Sorry if my argument was a little unclear, tried to word it the best that I could). If anyone disagrees with me, I would love to hear your opinions on my user talk page or in response to this on this discussion page. Thanks!
NitrogenTSRH (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scenario? (NOT A FORUM POST) 

message: This section I found particularly ironic:
"Stalkers may slander or defame the character of their victims which may isolate the victims and give the stalkers more control or a feeling of power.
Stalkers may use manipulative behavior such as bringing legal action against their victims. They may also attempt to diagnose victims with false mental illnesses."
If you flip this around, and change the labels, you get this:
"A woman may slander or defame the character of the man by falsely claiming he is stalking her, which may isolate the victim and give the slanderer more control or a feeling of power.
A woman may also use manipulative behavior such as bringing legal action against the man, such as Ex Parte restraining orders, Exclusive Matrimonial Posession Orders, Peace bonds, simply by lying in court or making a libellous or highly inflated affadavit. The woman may also attempt to diagnose or spread rumours about (untrue) mental illnesses."
You have the classic situation of a person (mostly women, but oviously not ALL women) falsly accusing or branding their ex partner/husband/boyfriend a stalker. Then proceeding to tell everyone that will listen (especially police) what a bad man he is. This is essentially slander and defamation.
I wonder how many 'stalking' cases are actually hysterical spiteful women (the article does say that most 'stalkers' are men, therefore, most 'victims' must be women) getting their own back on a former partner? Would be interesting to find out.
Perhaps a mention on Alberta, Canada's skewed system against men would be good. There is research ( i cant remember where) that says that use (and abuse) of the restraining order system here in ALberta is rampant. A woman only needs to complain to police that she just FEELS afraid of the man, and she can get a restraining order, without even notifying the man, or his counsel having a chance for a rebuttal.
Thats what happened to me. My wife, (soon to be EX wife thank god) had an affair on me. I found out, filed divorce, and a few weeks later got served a restraining order whilst at work. By coincidence of course, her new boyfreind was able to stay at the house now. When you are served an order like that, as soon as you read it, its OVER. You cant go back to the house. Even if you only have the clothes on your back and your car, TOO BAD. You are INSTANTLY HOMELESS at that point.
Maybe a section like this would be more suited in the restraining order section....?
KCM 204.191.239.189 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  could we possibly have a section on the abuse of the justice system when people falsly accuse stalking? 

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

message: I cannot edit this article. Somebody could add the informations below in it?
===Brazil===
Stalking, in Brazil, shapes the penal contravention of "perturbation of the tranquillity", with the next description:
"Art. 65. To bother someone or to disturb the tranquillity, for provocation or for reprovable motive:
Penalty – simple prison, of fifteen days to two months, or fine [...] " 
In Brazil it is a simple contravention punished with simple prison or fine, it constitutes fact more serious than many crimes, like the threat and the insult. It is certain that, in many hypotheses, these crimes integrate the global action of the pursuit, because the subject does not stop answering for them in contest. Meantime, that stalking since principal fact longed by the author is of bigger seriousness than installments crimes. The fact, for this reason, deserves more attention and consideration of the Brazilian legislator, being turned into criminal autonomous figure and better definite.
PS:. Sorry for my bad english. Probably someone would have to correct many things. Suin (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In Brazil

message: Stalking, in Brazil, shapes the penal contravention of "perturbation of the tranquillity", with the next description:
"Art. 65. To bother someone or to disturb the tranquillity, for provocation or for reprovable motive:
Penalty – simple prison, of fifteen days to two months, or fine [...] " 
In Brazil it is a simple contravention punished with simple prison or fine, it constitutes fact more serious than many crimes, like the threat and the insult. It is certain that, in many hypotheses, these crimes integrate the global action of the pursuit, because the subject does not stop answering for them in contest. Meantime, that stalking since principal fact longed by the author is of bigger seriousness than installments crimes. The fact, for this reason, deserves more attention and consideration of the Brazilian legislator, being turned into criminal autonomous figure and better definite.
PS:. Sorry for my bad english. Probably someone would have to correct many things. Suin (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil

message: This section would probably be more accurately described as 'law on harassment' since most of the offences appear to be described as harassment. I have to concede that I am not sure what it is doing in an article that seems to be predominantly about psychology.
The remark about R v. Constanza (which has oddly been placed in the section on the US) should read ... if the victim suffers actual bodily harm and the act said to be characterised as 'stalking' amounts to common assault... etc. . The remark presently suggests that liability under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 could arise for a trifling or transient injury (which it can't) or in the absence of an assault (which includes battery) (which it can't). James500 (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Law on stalking: innaccurate

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

message: It is the final sentence which appears to be advice. It tells us that we should regard female stalkers in a particular way (emphasis added).James500 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender studies on stalking - explanation of howto tag 

message: I think that as it stands this section suggests that the majority of people who are stalked are female.
I am aware of studies that assert that there is no difference between the level of male and female 'victimisation' (I shall use this word until I can think of a more neutral one), but that there is serious under-reporting of male 'victimisation': 
e.g. Spitzberg, Nicastro and Cousins, 'Exploring the interactive phenomenon of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion',(1998) 11(1) Communication Reports, pp 33-47
It is suggested therein that men are less inclined to define themselves as stalking victims or are more reluctant to involve the authorities. 
I have only heard of this paper from reading a textbook (Emily Finch, Criminalisation of stalking) that quotes it. James500 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of factual accuracy tag

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

message: I don't know what that is marked as such.  All you have to do is visit the pages for the US Dept of Justice and see the information there corroborrates with what's in that section.  Sounds to me like some people can't handle the truth.  Most stalkers are MEN, and most stalked are WOMEN!
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/stalking/welcome.htm
No, most people accused of stalking are men, and most people claiming to be stalked are women - and the statistics reflect this only. What they don't do is tell us the actual figure of men / women who are stalking people, and unless you're omnipotent you can't tell us either. A bias in the judicial system would certainly skew the data: a woman is far more likely to fear violence from a man giving them unwanted attention than a man receiving unwanted attention from woman. That means a woman is more likely to report an incident of perceived stalking - whether the threat of malice or violence existed or not - than a man. Also, the myriad of laws (such as domestic violence / restraining orders) that dictate a male must be treated as guilty on the accusation of a female until they can prove themselves innocent automatically create a justice system set-up to be abused should a female wish to do so. How much do these things affect the final statistics? Who knows. Once again, you'd have to be omnipotent to know. Ozymandias King of Kings (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual information disputed?

message: Why is stalking a pejorative term, while harassment is not?  Stalking is not a pejorative term.  It is a relatively new term  used to communicate a relatively new social phenomenon.  That is not to say that stalking never occurred in the past, but that it a civil offense which has become so widespread that a handy term had to be coined so that it could be discussed effectively.
----
Secondly, the universality of stalking.  I object that stalking must meet standards of universality when in fact it may be culture specific.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.56.47 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalking as a Pejorative Term 

message: An anon IP added the following statement:
:97% of stalkers were males stalking females and 3% were females stalking males and other females. A number of robberies, sexual assault and rape have been the result of this stalking
to a section that cited  as a source. I can't see anything that supports this in the abstract of the article visible for free on the web; the rest of the paper is behind a paywall. Can someone with online access to this paper check whether it supports this statement? -- The Anome (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  97% / 3% figure 

message: There is a claim that stalkers are mostly male. Here is a source. I am not very good at adding citations, so here you go:
http://www.stalkingalert.com/questionsanswers.htm
"Although the majority of stalkers are male, there are female stalkers who are just as devious and dangerous." - Rhonda Saunders, J.D., respected as an expert on stalking laws
23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalkers Being Male Citation 

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

message: 'Gang stalking' is not related to the classical stalking which this page is about. Likewise psychological paranoia is not relevant. Likewise differing legal frameworks are an inherent issue and have no bearing on the fundamental issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsupremacy (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And in fact, the newly added cause stalking article does distinguish cause stalking from classical stalking - observing it is a form of vengeance, or in instances where the group makes itself available for hire (as an investigator asserts happens regularly), a type of terrorism - all backed up by reliable sources.  So basically, the controversy over Gang Stalking is due to poorly considered edits from inexperienced editors whose interest in Wikipedia began and ended with this particular topic.  Once the Gang Stalking page is restored and redirects to cause stalking, this controversy is over.Jeremystalked T C 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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

message: I am not too involved with this article or subject to know whether these changes are on the whole good or not, but I should just note the changes were fairly wide sweeping, esp wrt to the lede: . For your reference. –xenotalk 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality of this article has significantly diminished since I last looked at it and I remain concerned at the way parts of the the article reads.  Too many comments are unreferenced and, as such, constitute original research and personal opinion.  And many comments are poorly expressed or don't even make much sense.  I have been criticised in the past for questioning the motives behind some edits but my suspicions remain. Afterwriting (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to the earlier version. –xenotalk 15:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wide sweeping changes 

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

message: what is the neutrality dispute about? Also, it seems to have a global view mentioning at least 9 different nations, more than most wiki articles.67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the issue is with the part "As with sexual harassment law, it is very easy for false claims to be made or at least for the law to be broken as the law is so ill-defined, whether or not someone has been harassed has no objective definition and claims can be made arbitrarily. Compensation claims add another reason for false and malicious claims.", especially the last sentence and the bolded part. I suggest that either a source for this be provided or that part be deleted. I'd also like to point out that the tag is one year old this month, so whatever debate may have run it's course or ended in a stalemate. Hertzyscowicz (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute, Global view 

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

message: Currently we have one reliable source, David Lawson's book on Cause Stalking, that mentions gang stalking / organized stalking by name and offers definitions.
Seeing as how Wikipedia considers cartoon characters and obscure science fiction titles "notable", would Lawson's book be notable?  I'd think the answer is yes, but I'd like to be sure before I create the article.
As for an article on Gang Stalking / Organized Stalking - would an interview with an authority (such as a police department) acknowledging gang stalking / organized stalking (as defined by Lawson) as a problem be acceptable as a second source?  Several interviews? How about this interview with a Police Lieutenant from Santa Cruz, California: http://www.kionrightnow.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=5515056&h1=What%20Is%20Gang%20Stalking%3F&vt1=v&at1=undefined&d1=125134&LaunchPageAdTag=News&undefined&activePane=info&rnd=98938796
Jeremystalked (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable sources supporting "Gang stalking"; "cause stalking" as a notable article 

message: :I've marked the entire section "Politics behind stalking laws and civil liberties" with . I'd greatly appreciate it if other editors could improve it to provide a balanced, NPOV treatment of these issues. -- The Anome (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I have not simply removed the section, as I easily could have done if my intention had been to suppress your opinion. Instead, I have merely added a request that it be fact-checked, and information from other competing perspectives added, per Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- The Anome (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

text: To the extent that your contribution meets Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, and reports the opinions of others as verifiable from reliable sources, I'm perfectly happy for it to stay there. I worry that some of your wording might be construed to be non-neutral, and may have elements of editorializing or original research, but that is in any case likely to be toned down by later editors, or balanced with the reporting of opposing opinions, as part of the general process of Wikipedia editing. -- The Anome (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything in that section is appropriate content for Wikipedia. It's basically just an anti-feminist rant against stalking laws. It's original research and very POV. The facts that are cited are synthesized to advance a point of view and 2 of the 4 cited references aren't even reliable sources. If someone wants to create a section on the history of how stalking laws developed, that would be fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place for editorializing. Kaldari (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at what was deleted and agree. There certainly is WP:RS info on this topic that could be included in an NPOV way, but that wasn't it, by a long shot. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics behind stalking laws and civil liberties 

message: I was pretty offended by this page which appears to express a distinction between legal and psychological definitions of stalking.
'Stalking' is actions laced with malice used to damage a targetted victim. 
The issue is that there needs to be a global interpretation that does not presume that legal facet of reality is seperate from the psychological one. Actually the psychological issues associated with stalking are secondary to the offence and I don't understand how you can come up with a psychological interpretation of a criminal offense. 
A person who needs an intimate companion is not a stalker - that is a very offensive and wrong statement in this page. Whoever came up with that discription is a complete moron. The world has a vast population and the majority of its members are either participating in or seeking an intimate relationship with someone. Seeking a sexual partner is not a crime and is not stalking.
As I have defined and had my work vandalised on this page that stalkers are people who conduct others with distinct malice and do so with intent to cause harm or damage others. 
Psychological issues associated with stalking do not correspond to sexuality or intimacy issues. A genuine victim will have issues dealing with an experience and likely develop a characteristic disorder or condition as a result. With respect to the perpetrator the element of malice in the conduct suggests criminal motivations and this leads to the suggestion of the devinant nature of stalking - which can be characterised from typical and normal behaviour and conduct by the element of malice that is directed upon the victims. Psychological explanations for stalking can be racism, sexism, and phenomena - an innocent expression of admiration towards another person is not stalking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100to1 100-11 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalker Types 

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

message: In the interests of documenting the ongoing POV-pushing attempts by this community, please note the following AfDs:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Controversy
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Lawsuit
This community is apparently fixated on gaining credibility for their alleged shared persecution by documenting it on WP, but I have yet to see any Reliable Sources whatsoever substantiating their claims. Attempts at sourcing thus far include a notarised affidavit by a claimed former FBI officer who claims to have carried out such targeting, some news clips from local Fox affiliates interviewing people who claim to be gang-stalked (with no substantiating of the veracity of the claims) and a thus-far unsuccessful legal case of someone alleging the government is monitoring them. The only decent cite is an NYT article Sharing Their Demons (November 13 2008) discussing whether it's a psychosis, "shared belief system" or what, but again not even slightly implying that thousands of people are being targeted by shadowy figures.
At this point, I could see adding a section here noting that many people claim to be gang-stalked, and include the NYT cite and any other coverage about how their online community has become a self-supporting system of arguable "shared delusion". But in the meantime we're just AfDing these WP:Coatrack articles as being OR, synthesis, and simply not substantiated by any reliable sources, even when such sources are claimed. I've glanced at a few links to their forums, and there seems to be some organising among them over the years to attempt to force their POV into WP, so at this point gang stalking coverage at all sends up some WP:Red flags. Unfortunately, deleting conspiracy theories just makes us "part of the problem" in their eyes, but I don't see much other way around it except deletion, and if necessary IP blocks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have the section that you suggest citing the NYT source and another from The Washington Post. As a sufferer from chronic mental illness myself I would strongly encourage those who believe in this stuff to seek medical help, but I very much doubt that they will take my advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be noted that if the former FBI agent cited above by Matthew is the late Ted Gunderson, his affidavit actually makes no claims of his own participation in any such crimes. The affidavit he furnished seemed to be an extension of his efforts to promote various conspiracy theories including but not limited to a nationwide Satanic Cult organization which allegedly financed its "gang stalking" activities by kidnapping up to 2000 children per day and auctioning them off at private auctions. Gunderson made a number of claims in that affidavit, none of which he supported with references or evidence. Gunderson has been associated with or personally promoted virtually every conspiracy theory out there, including speaking to groups of people outside Area 51 about aliens.Batvette (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more "gang stalking" coatracks at AfD 

message: Intimacy seekers seek to establish an intimate, loving relationship with their victim. To many of them the victim is a long-sought-after soul mate, and they were 'meant' to be together. Pleas Remove this from the type of stalkers category. Intimacy seekers are not stalkers. There is no valid reference to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpnuke (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would appear to be a rationalization for the classic obsessed stalker rather than some innocent as you imply. Please provide a reference to substantiate your assertion. Acroterion (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need appropriate reliable sources per policy. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intimacy seekers  

message: I signed up just to ask. I am a victim of this myself, so i am not neutral/objective in asking by the way. But why are people here  so insistent on not having it on the page? It is documented on Fox News, I was going to bring this up and saw multiple people already had. What is the problem with this? Humans have always ganged up on each other. Why is this so hard to believe, you are  denying evidence when presented with it...  You will all eat your words one day trust me. Anyway, I am to sick to really take up this fight. One day justice will prevail. Look up  mass shootings related to gang stalkings. I have registered the Stasi Zersetzung techniques have their own wiki page. These are psychological warfare tactics used in the soviet union, and especially in the D.D.R. The thing is, in todays world everyone and their grandma have access to these tactics. Humans are no less evil now than we were 70 years ago. I understand the sceptics though. I would have a really hard time believing in this had someone told me about it before it started happening to me. We are masters of denial. One day it might happen to you... I hope it doesnt though. As for me I would much rather be killed by a firing squad than being forced to commit suicide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocracyIllusion (talk • contribs)  — DemocracyIllusion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
Funny that victims of robbery, assault and other crimes are solely focused on reporting those crimes against themselves and bringing the perpetrators to justice. 
Self claimed gang stalking victims seem only concerned with advertising to the world that it is happening somewhere to someone other than them, and usually have endless excuses why they cannot be bothered to make any effort to document their own case. The exceptions who have posted videos on youtube etc. provide good comedy relief as they "prove" their "torture".
To the point why would you care what wikipedia publishes on the issue? How would this prevent you from documenting actual crimes against yourself? 
Or is it really seeking the validation of having something to show family and friends, that if it happens to somebody somewhere, it could be happening to you?  Batvette (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about gang stalking/group stalking/modern lynching