Talk:Stalking/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Stalk (botany)

"Stalk" redirects here. But there is nothing about Stalk, the longish part of a plant supporting the seed-carrying parts of the plant.


Karada's Way

Karada, I am at a loss to explain why you would delete the information I provided about cyberstalking. The information has been restored with enhancement to flow and readability. I cannot think of a more appropriate and scholarly contribution for this particular article (cyberstalking) than the information I provided about the abuse of Web-based resources (i.e. search engines, domain registrars, Usenet) not only by individual cyberstalkers, but by groups of cyberstalkers whose gang-like activity is made uniquely possible by the characteristics of the Internet (e.g. anonymity, cybersleuthing, and lack of geographic distance makes cooperative networking simple). It's not only verifiable facts, but the facts are also stable over time. The phenomenon I document is an enduring trait of the Internet and not an attempt to call attention to a single stalker or flame war.

For you to designate such a contribution as "kookery" is abusive and unscholarly and turns reality on its head. The term kookery itself is meaningless, serving only an expressive (i.e. valuative) function. All the facts are empirical and verifiable, and none of the facts are presented in an irrational or incomprehensible manner. The reference to a particular news group, the only aspect of the report I consider even remotely disputable, is clearly marked as illustrative, and all readers are aware the group is being used as both (a) an example to give concrete form to cold facts and abstract concepts and (b) a reference (if you examine the group, here is an example of the facts).

I suspect your problem is really not with the merits of the content itself but with the periphera (i.e. tenor, motive, venue). If you have a problem with what you think is my motivation, I do not think it is material. Regardless of what my motives were for writing this piece (and these motives are not endemic to the text), the material is factual and verifiable and it is not offered as opinion. More importantly, this information is socially conscientious, civically responsible, and capable of preventing many cases of cyberstalking.

So please cease and desist your following me around Wikipedia. I am not trying to spam Wikipedia with this content. I think you'll find that if you simply give it its due place (and you can decide whether it should be here in Cyberstalking or in Stalking), that I will stop reviving it. I keep putting it in various places ONLY BECAUSE you have been deleting it and then attempting to pass me off as a spammer or vandal. I think your motives / emotions are more transparent than mine.

Moreover, efforts to improve this content may include qualification, editing, and sidebar discussion, but wholesale deletion and redirection to empty shells is simply extreme, inappropriate, and thus "vandalizing."


Merge?

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

Correcting Celebrity Bias

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)

I absolutely agree. I've been watching this article for the last few weeks as part of some hunting talk on hunting methods and the amount of space that folks are spending on what seems celebrity gossip is pretty suprising. If one is concerned with stalking as an issue of domestic violence or political persecution, this article seems to denigrate those in favor of a "who's who" of celebrity trivia. Since people seem genuinely interested in these things (and given the recent anniversary of John Lennon's death, with reason), perhaps it would be a good idea to "hive off" all the celebrity stuff and let this one focus on stalking as it relates to civilians. Cyberstalking seems to have gotten its own article (which is almost an instruction manual on technique), so perhaps celebrity stalking should as well, to make this more relevant to "normal" people with safety concerns or the people who want to help them. This would also allow those who are interested in celebrity stalking to discuss that in more detail. Rorybowman 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've hived this off to List of stalked celebrities. Rorybowman 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychological aspects?

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)

The short answer: You can procure a copy of J. Reid Meloy's book, The Psychology of Stalking, published 1998. It is the first monograph ever published on this topic.

The long answer: I have read the book just mentioned cover to cover, yet summarising the topics here proves quite arduous to me so I leave this to other users. Mission9801 02:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

A 14 year old was having trouble reading the beginning to the article. She wanted to know what an idea of stalking was, so I gave her the wikipedia address. Didn't check the rest of the article, but the first paragraph was badly written.

Grammar is ok now. Thanks to all who improved the corrections I started. You can compare what the first paragraph was like before I edited it, to the current one by going to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stalking&diff=22359160&oldid=22297826

Princess Diana

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)

I have inserted the note "disputed" in a reference to the Princess Diana incident. Mission9801 04:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added George Bush Jr. on the stalking list because, one month after winning the heated 2000 US election, he was followed by one John Hughes (not the film director), who said to Secret Servicemen that he had a letter for him. These men checked his car parked nearby, in which they found two shotguns, a 9mm handgun, and a rifle, and was arrested on the spot. This guy would be famous a year later for claming to be Meg Ryan's "fianceé". My source is http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,9456,00.html

Persecution vs. stalking

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)

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)
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)
It makes sense, but isn't there some overlap between the two? Izehar 22:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the article it is describing the law around stalking, and it is important to stay focussed on statute: not what some individual may think is annoying or rude. I'm not a legal expert but usually there are specific acts which are explicitly forbidden. When one gets into such vague territory as "asking friends for information" one is getting a bit away from the law and the term "stalking" is not what is discussed. A lot of bad behavior exists outside of the legal prohibitions of theft, assault, stalking or rape. Persecution and rudeness are not necessarily stalking and it is important not to lead people to think they are. Rorybowman 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Jimmy Wales?

Is he really being stalked or has been stalked by anyone? Or is it just a joke? In The Flesh?

Many people who feel defamed by Wikipedia, especially one ordinary citizen by the name of Daniel Brandt (whose only claim to fame is that he started Wikipedia Watch and should not have a Wikipedia article devoted to him), believe it is Wales who is, in a manner of speaking, the "stalker."

moved from article

Gang Stalking & Usenet

Gang stalking is a particularly pernicious form of stalking in which the morality of the individual stalker is further diluted in technological anonymity and group consciousness. The unmoderated Usenet news groups, widely accessible by way of Google Groups and other ISPs, are widely known for its cyberstalking gangs, which derive enjoyment from harassing, defaming, and disrupting persons who voice unconventional wisdom or complaints on the Web. The unmoderated Usenet news groups offer hobby-hungry hatemongerers a headquarters from which to remain untraceably anonymous and form strategic alliances with other masked parties. What also makes these gangs dangerous is the division of labor among members with a wide range of skill sets. Members of the gang operating out of sci.psychology.psychotherapy, for example, have engaged in hacking, identity theft, and impersonation to menace their victims, even going as far as to recruit Usenetters from other news groups in the stalking and drag the family members of victims into the defamation. Gang members with criminal and/or psychiatric histories are called on to instill fear, and propaganda specialists and professional shills create and spam-advertise networks of search optimized Web-based dossiers. The dossiers and their dissemination throughout Usenet's news group and Web-based forums are designed to manipulate public perception of victims such that the results of a Google search on the victim's name will be front-loaded with false and unflattering information. Just what is possible in Usenet-based gang stalking?

1. Stalker A submits a spurious negative review of Victim A's book in Amazon.com's customer review section under the name of Victim B (impersonation). Stalker A illicitly procured the credit card number of Victim B to "authenticate" the spurious negative review (identity theft) in order to make it more difficult for Victim A, even with Victim B's assistance, to have the review expunged.

2. Even though Victim C's phone and residential address information has been unpublished for years, Stalker B uses Web-based commercial people data search services such as Intelius.com and peopledata.com to not only locate Victim C, but also a history of Victim C's residential addresses, which are then cross-referenced with other information to find the names and current locations of Victim C's parents, siblings, spouse, and roommates. A Web search and a Google Groups search on the name of Victim C's wife reveals 582 vulgar, libelous, and occasionally threatening messages that feign fly-on-the-wall knowledge of what went on in her career and her bedroom.

3. Stalker C impersonates Victim D by forging e-mails in Victim D's name while concealing / falsifying the IP source info to make Victim D appear like a spammer or a troll. Stalker C, using multiple aliases and e-mail addresses, and possibly some real confederates from the gang, bombard Victim D's ISP, Web hosting service, news group posting service, and possibly even law enforcement with false reports / complaints of abuse. Victim D's services are temporarily suspended until Victim D persuades services to examine the evidence and broader situation more closely.

Comments

The text above appears to be an account of a specific instance of alleged cyberstalking. While there may be some useful material here that we can summarize, it seems to me that this is too personal for the article in its present state. And in any case, it probably should be in Cyberstalking rahter than this article. -Willmcw 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the author of that content. It used to be in cyberstalking and I agree that it belonged there, but it is here because Karada keeps deleting it wholesale without proportion or due process. This is not a measured response and I believe it constitutes vandalism. The material has been restored and enhanced for flow and readability. It is as IMpersonal, factual, and verifiable as articles come, and I can't imagine a more appropriate, scholarly, and socially conscientious piece for Cyberstalking. It never ceases to amaze me as a social psychologist that an expert can be so roundly and inappropriately sanctioned by non-experts. If you think the material can be improved, edit, trim, or expand it. But the response thus far is not an intelligent or measured response and the way people are responding to my Web site screen capturing these events for the public, it would appear the public agrees.

Didn't this material used to be in Cyberstalking? I am very much for distributing such sub-topical material as cyberstalking and celebrity stalking to separate articles. I'm not aware of a specific policy, but sometimes more isn't better and the main focus of an article gets lost in a sea of detail. Rorybowman 21:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with Rorybowman and largely with Willmcw. If this information is to be kept at all, it needs 1) to be condensed, and 2) sent over to cyberstalking. Also, I'd like someone to give me some reasons why the list of stalked celebrities isn't trivia we can do without. The Literate Engineer 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Editors may wish to look at Gang stalking. Apparently an editor, using various names and IPs, is placing this type of material all over Wikipedia. -Willmcw 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
B.S. It's only in multiple places because the author knows the material is being vandalized and inappropriately deleted by someone who has the gaul to turn around and use the multiple places as a justification for continued deletion. Cute.

Stalking a former lover isn't unrequited love

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)

Toltecs?

Is this really notable? As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation I don't think the opening sentences are the place for the following paragraph:

: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)

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)

I agree with your assessment. -Will Beback 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Good idea. -Will Beback 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page created

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)


Why resistance about inclusion of gang stalking?

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)

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)

I see. I guess the difficulty I have with "conspiracy" is that it assumes a degree of organization to the crime, and gang stalking can be quite mindless and spontaneous. In much of the gang stalking that occurs, I don't think everyone sits down and discusses how those involved can ruin someone elses life. But since their behavior towards the victim is chronic, extraordinary damage, and even ruination, often occurs as a result. Still, I respect the controversy surrounding the topic, and thank you for the input. (You will probably see people continue to insert this topic as those who experience gang stalking will continue to think it should be included here.) 68.92.198.61 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Obsessional pusruit

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)

Yushchenko. . .?

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)

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)