Talk:Stalking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Archive to March 2006: Talk:Stalking/Archive01


Contents

[edit] Psychology And Mental Health Of The Stalker

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

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

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

[edit] Added readings, and put back cited sources that were removed

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

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

[edit] Uncited information

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


[edit] Missing word?

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

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

[edit] Target of External Resources

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

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

Good point, but the practical question "Is this stalking?" is answered in local laws. The existing link to State Laws works, and it also provides news summaries, including a stalker found to have multiple targets he had followed for months who had not yet become aware of him when police found his creepy index of notes. The best state laws consider stalking similar to offenses like wire-tapping, interfering with mail, gradual poisoning (i.e., some actions may be found crimes or misdemeanors whether or not the target knew of the danger or had formed any specific fears). Of course, most stalking victims would be delighted to have hard evidence of related crimes, such as burglary of their home by the stalker, and would prefer to leave talk of their emotions out of court transcripts.
Some state laws -- and the opening of this Wikipedia article -- define stalking in terms of fear caused. If the target person instead feels normal, sensible anger, it may be impossible to press stalking charges in a jurisdiction where prosecutors must show psychological injury. You might want to beef up the link somehow, adding emphasis to the need to know local laws exactly as they stand at the time, rather than relying on general concepts outlined here. An innocent person shouldn't live in fear of false or frivolous prosecution, while a genuine stalking victim may need to find evidence to bring other charges against their tormentors. A lot may depend on which side of the state line you call home. 152.163.100.7 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit]

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

[edit] Fair Judgement?

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

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

I'm worried I could become a stalker. What can I do to avoid it? I have few spells of such ardent lucidity as I am experiencing now. --79.66.98.65 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend you get psychiatric help before you commit a state or federal offense (wherever place or country you live in) or actually stalk or harrass someone. However, maybe the other person refuses to associate with you (is the other person male or female?) and it's best to leave that person alone for now on. I don't know if you already knew this person as an acquintescene for a short period of time, but you became fixated or desire to meet them.

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

[edit] Scientology?

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

[edit] Stalking in media and literature

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

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