Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Stalking#Stalking by groups. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cause stalking

[edit]
Cause stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The objective reality of the phenomenon described in this has serious verifiability problems:

  • the first book reference checked looks like a self-published work: Google Books page images of it, which give an email address with the author's name as the contact for its publisher, appear to confirm this.
  • the NVAA web page linked for another reference appears not to contain either of the two terms that it is claimed as supporting.
  • A third reference is to a book which is not available online, so cannot be checked.
  • The single news story is to a person who believes this is real; the news story itself does not appear to state that this is a real phenomenon.

Now, there might be a place for an article about the very real phenomenon of people believing that they are being stalked by shadowy conspiracies, but this isn't it: if it were to be created, it should be at gang stalking, the common name for this subject, as demonstrated by the news stories that have decribed the belief in it by that name while taking great care not to assert the objective reality of the reported phenomena.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and Talk:Gang stalking for much, much more discussion of this subject.

That this article was created by User:Jeremystalked, an apparent single-purpose POV-pushing account devoted to similar questionable phenomena, is not encouraging, either: see their talk page for their mission statement, including the statement that "Wikipedia is just another disinformation outlet helping to blame the victims of government-sanctioned torture." The Anome (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've also removed the following reference per WP:UNDUE: "Stopping a Stalker: A Cop's Guide to Making the System Work for You" by Robert L. Snow, ISBN 978-0738206271, pp. 85-88 -- the views about "gang stalking" in this seem not to be representative of the law enforcement community at large, as evidenced by this (complimentary) Amazon review, apparently from a gang stalking believer, saying " Police Officer Captain Robert Snow is the only police officer that we know of who recognizes the existence of stalking groups. [The rest of the Law Enforcement Community still on denial]."
This leaves just the one definite WP:RS reference, in the form of the KENS 5 news story that carefully does not make any assertions about the reality of the alleged phenomenon, and, although it does use the term "gang stalking" does not anywhere use the term "cause stalking." -- The Anome (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stalking. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary tells us that we should not have articles on words or expressions. The fact that a group can stalk an individual should be mentioned in the article on stalking, the name for it does not need its own article. Wolfview (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless, of course, the name denotes a particular type of stalking that is extensively covered in the literature, which is exactly what Penbat and The Anome have put the effort in to find out. You can help by … well … helping. Do some research to find out whether, indeed, this is a subject that the world has reliably and properly documented. If it is a properly and fully documented subject, it warrants an article. If it isn't even an alternative name for a documented subject, then it doesn't even warrant a redirect. But we only know by doing the research. And we only know with a degree of certainty when multiple editors at AFD do the research independently, each double-checking the others. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Initial thoughts: Both "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" have a few references in Google scholar but not many. Mobbing is a well established concept and it is self-evident that mobbing on a wider scale (such as at the community level and national level) may exist using mechanisms such as demonization and persecution as for example the Jews were in WW2. But it is confusing to think of gang stalking and cause stalking as varieties of stalking, might have been better if they were called gang mobbing and cause mobbing. Anyway at this level you are more in the realm of belief systems rather than demonstrable scientific fact, it ties in with concepts such and the Illuminati and the ideas of Alex Jones etc. We are not necessarily dealing with way out conspiracy theorists here and i personally find quite a few of the ideas to be quite plausible.

      Personally i would have articles on both "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" but more as plausible belief systems that tie in with some other related Wikipedia articles (such as Illuminati and Alex Jones), rather than expecting them to stand up to much academic scrutiny. That is not to say that they couldnt stand up to academic scrutiny, just that it is probably difficult to formulate academic research in this area. But believers in the Illuminati, "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" will offer tons of evidence supporting their view, but others may then provide evidence to the contrary.

      We currently have an article called Structural abuse i notice which is quite closely related but I think it implies that it might be unintentional state abuse.--Penbat (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just to add that "gang stalking" gives about 46000 google results and "cause stalking" gives about 12000 google results.--Penbat (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're quite right: both "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" are the subjects of much discussion on the Internet, and there are numerous websites devoted to them. The question here is whether they actually have any existence in reality, outside the minds of those advocating their existence. I think there are two things we can do here: one is to write a gang stalking article based on the only reliable sources I've been able to find so far, which refer to it solely in terms of being a belief system, or to avoid writing an article of any sort until we can find reliable sources that say otherwise. -- The Anome (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Im not too sure what RS means for belief systems. There are quite a few notable people (some who have Wiki entries) who believe in the illuminati and will provide supporting evidence. Similar people would probably support and provide evidence for cause and gang stalking. The current "cause stalking" article is short of citations and maybe largely OR, "gang stalking" probably was the same but i never saw it and the talk page is no longer visible. Surely a citation from any notable advocate of these ideas is acceptable as is a citation from anybody notable who rejects the ideas. --Penbat (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're not missing out. The only actual sources cited in the Gang stalking (AfD discussion) article at the time of its nomination for deletion were the DOJ WWW site already mentioned in this discussion, and a self-published book by one David Lawson. (By the end of the AFD discussion, the article had degenerated into a lengthy rant against various Usenet newsgroups. We should regard ourselves as fortunate that articles generally improve when changed at AFD, nowadays.) Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the NVAA web page linked for another reference appears not to contain either of the two terms that it is claimed as supporting." The link ( [1] ) says: "Vengeance stalkers do not seek a personal relationship with their targets. Rather, vengeance/terrorist stalkers attempt to elicit a particular response or a change of behavior from their victims. When vengeance is their prime motive, stalkers seek only to punish their victims for some wrong they perceive the victim has visited upon them. In other words, they use stalking as a means to "get even" with their enemies... A second type of vengeance or terrorist stalker, the political stalker, has motivations that parallel those of more traditional terrorists. That is, stalking is a weapon of terror used to accomplish a political agenda. Utilizing the threat of violence to force the stalking target to engage in or refrain from engaging in particular activity. For example, most prosecutions in this stalking category have been against anti-abortionists who stalk doctors in an attempt to discourage the performance of abortions."

    Just search the text of the page for "vengeance" or "terror".Jeremystalked(law 296) 17:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, the page you cite above certainly does talk about "vengeance stalking": it does not, however, either mention, or make any link to, "cause stalking" or "gang stalking", the subject of this article. -- The Anome (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an apparent single-purpose POV-pushing account devoted to similar questionable phenomena..."[2] First of all, I'm not the only person who expresses the view that Wikipedia has serious biases, even on Wikipedia. Second, are you saying for the record that if someone is determined to flood Wikipedia with disinformation, they must psychopathically create an account that appears to be interested in several unrelated topics?Jeremystalked(law 296) 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only "bias" we have here is the requirement for verifiability from multiple reliable third-party sources; see WP:V. Since you are making the assertion that this phenomenon exists, the burden of proof rests with you. Cites, please. -- The Anome (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the third book isn't available online..."[3] Look again, buddy. [4]Jeremystalked(law 296) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant that previous of its text are not available online. If you want to cite it as a reference, please give us page numbers and brief quotes of the relevant portions that directly support your assertions. -- The Anome (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of cause stalking vs. gang stalking

[edit]
  • Terrorist stalking by anti-abortionists in the US is notable, has several mainstream media references, and the only question is what to call it. I chose "cause stalking". "Terrorist stalking" would also be acceptable, IMO. Gang Stalking, as everyone here is aware, is not notable as Wikipedia defines notability. However, at least one editor has created a redirect for it.[5] Clearly it is a subject that some users of Wikipedia are interested in, and it's worth breaking the rules (WP:IAR) to at least create an accurate redirect for gang stalking - pointing to (as I've suggested) cause stalking, which most closely resembles what people interested in the topic of Gang Stalking would expect.Jeremystalked(law 296) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is reinforcing the point that pretty much all the manifestations of abuse are infinately scalable from a 1 to 1 relationship all the way up to global warfare, the psychology is pretty much the same anywhere up the scale. It also looks like you are getting hung up on abuse type labels - now we have something called "terror stalking" when "terrorism" covers that ground. In the UK we had animal-rights extremists damaging homes of people who work at animal labs - similar to your anti-abortionists. Abuse-type labels tend to overlap with each other, so one person may use one label, another person may use another. You are just covering abuse higher up the scale (at the community level) than is often the case but the same concepts - such as humiliation, intimidation, stalking etc still apply at any part of the scale. Also any one incidence of abuse is likely to combine several abuse type labels as a mix.--Penbat (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay then, why not just file every conceivable type of abuse under one Wikipedia article, abuse? While we're at it, let's file every kind of crime under crime. Perhaps we could merge them into a single article, crime or abuse. Just to be clear, I'm being sarcastic.

        Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but there is clearly a need to distinguish between different kinds of crimes, abuses, psychological concepts, and so on, for the benefit of the layman. So then, the question is, does 'cause stalking' deserve attention separate from religious terrorism, christian terrorism, or stalking? I would say yes:

        1. . It can't simply be classified as religious terrorism, as Lawson asserts that cause stalking groups have branched out.
        2. . It can't simply be classified as stalking, either, because there is that overlap with religious terrorism.
      • Okay, so let's say the topic is worthy of a separate article. What to call it?

        While anti-abortion terrorists have gotten into the news for overt acts of violence, the cause stalking Lawson talks about more closely resembles classical stalking behavior, with covert violence against a target. (Stalking cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.) Anyone who was experiencing or reporting on what Lawson is talking about would immediately classify it as a form of stalking, only picking up on the psychological torture and terroristic aspects much later.

        So even though it's really terrorism, it would not be obvious as such to a disinterested third party - that is, a layman. And it is the layman these articles are being prepared for. I think it is best to stick with a form of stalking as the label.Jeremystalked(law 296) 20:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On making it an article about victims' beliefs

[edit]
  • Torture victims who have been forcibly thrust into a world of disinformation and psychological operations, and who don't have a firm grasp on economics, the laws of physics, and so on - are not the best people to be citing on this subject. I am deeply concerned that taking this approach to the article would result in the most outlandish claims being given undue weight as a form of disinformation. In fact, this very approach has been taken on the Masonic conspiracy theories page, where the most incredible claims drown out very real concerns about corruption and subversion of governmental institutions (as an example).

    In this and previous discussions about deletion of gang stalking related articles, the biases and naivete of Wikipedian editors are on public display. Above, The_Anome naively buys into the disinformation surrounding these campaigns when he talks about "vastly-well-resourced and ubiquitous teams of organized observers".[6] A large group of people would be able to plan much further ahead than a single person, who might be living from paycheck to paycheck. Getting the money to buy a house next to the target might be a simple matter of passing the collection plate at a large church. Or it might be regarded as a non-trivial expenditure, but the house can be sold or rented out later when the target has been hounded out of the area - net expenditure: $0. Basically, very little of what's going on in these campaigns has to cost a dime. You're just not looking at these things with the proper perspective.Jeremystalked(law 296) 22:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please re-read WP:V; if you want to assert that this is a real phenomenon, you need to provide provide multiple independent reports of the existence of these alleged conspiracies, from sources that meet the reliable sources criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not talking about WP:V. I'm talking about what you said.[7] Kindly refrain from presenting outlandish claims as representative of what all targets think in the future.Jeremystalked(law 296) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, since you've asked about plausbility, let me put it this way. Why would anyone bother to do this? If a group of people wanted to hurt someone, there are far cheaper, simpler, and more brutal ways to do so involving direct intimidation and physical violence.

          Believing that, firstly, you are important enough to other people that your enemies would attack you in a way that was complex, subtle, imperceptible to outsiders, and very expensive (in time and resources, for which money is a proxy) and then to believe that the whole rest of the world, including Wikipedia, is in on a conspiracy to cover it up, makes for a poor null hypothesis. Applying the Copernican principle to oneself is a far more parsimonious null hypothesis.

          You use the term "targets". I presume that this means you consider this phenomenon to be objectively real. Can you tell me why you do so? Did you read about it somewhere, or hear about it from someone else? If so, why do you believe them? Or do you believe, from your own personal experience, that you yourself are a target of this activity? If so, how would you show an unbiased third party that that was not a delusional belief?

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please provide some! -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • I didn't say "the whole rest of the world, including Wikipedia, is in on a conspiracy to cover it up".[8] I am not claiming that, nor do I believe it. You are ascribing ideas to me that I do not have. I find your desire to get me to defend ideas I don't have to be odd, to say the least. Keep your slander out of this deletion debate, and I can have a civil discussion with you about the merits of this article. As it is, you're coming across as biased and prejudiced in this discussion.Jeremystalked(law 296) 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm glad to hear that you don't believe that Wikipedia is in on a conspiracy. Can I assume that, since we should assume good faith on both sides, you are now no doubt ready to abide by Wikipedia's terms of engagement, and provide the multiple reports from independent third-party reliable sources required to support the assertions in the article? -- The Anome (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was under the impression that Lawson's book actually made it past a publisher. The reason for the odd format of the book jacket is that the edition published in 2007 (there's a prior book by him in 2001, Terrorist Stalking in America, ISBN 0-9703092-0-1) is a sort of "survival guide" which is meant to be carried in a pocket. So basically, I can save the article from deletion if this impression is correct, and I can provide quotes supporting the article?Jeremystalked(law 296) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I think you may be mistaken about that. The name part of the publisher's contact e-mail address given on page 4 of that book (see Google Books for a preview) is the same as that of the author; the WHOIS records of the domain part of that e-mail address also show both the technical and administrative contacts to be a person of that name. -- The Anome (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • One thing that's definitely true is that this publisher (Scrambling Press) doesn't have a presence on the web. So maybe there was a third party publisher, but it went out of business between 2007 and now. How to handle this?Jeremystalked(law 296) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Given apparent objective evidence that strongly suggests the book is most likely self-published, the burden of proof now rests on you to demonstrate that it was published by an entity that meets the WP:RS criteria. Also, just to make it clear: the "you" in the comment mentioning the Copernican hypothesis is a generic "you", referring to any hypothetical believer of that belief, and not referring to you personally. -- The Anome (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What are the reliable sources on this topic (referring to peoples' beliefs about gang stalking) you have? Are you referring to the newspaper articles (Mind Games in the Washington Post, etc)?Jeremystalked(law 296) 06:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes. There are more newpaper articles like that out there: there are good references to at least two of them buried somewhere in Wikipedia's history. I can either dig for those, or try to rediscover them. -- The Anome (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Google News Archive Search is a good tool for finding things like this. The Washington Post "Mind Games" article is at
    • Sharon Weinberger (January 14, 2007). "Mind Games". Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  • There is another interesting article at
  • It cites Vaughn Bell, who may also be a good WP:RS if I can find any peer-reviewed publications by him.
  • which is behind a paywall, appears from its intro to be a duplicate of the New York Times article. -- The Anome (talk)
  • Update: Bell has an extensive publication list: see http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=10947#academic I haven't got time to search through all of these at the moment, but I think they would be a good place to start. -- The Anome (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, at this point I'm convinced making an article which focuses on accusations of delusional beliefs or mental illness from the authorities is the wrong way to go. It would be like going back to 1972, shortly before the MKULTRA experiments were exposed, and publishing articles about how people believing government agents kidnapping and torturing them were delusional. That's not something I would want on my conscience.
    • It's like saying there are (as we know there are) mentally ill people who believe they are really the President of the United States. Should we amend President of the United States to focus on their delusions? Obviously not, as even if some of those delusions are WP:NOT, focusing on those delusions would be WP:UNDUE.
    • You might say, well, there are lots of claims from alleged cause stalking victims which don't appear to make a lot of sense. But since none of those alleged victims' testimonies are WP:RS, all of the most outrageous and prominent publications on the subject could have been fabricated as a form of Disinformation, which I seem to recall the CIA has been known to do. There are many examples of hoaxes being given WP:UNDUE, such as certain wild claims the Masonic conspiracy theory page refers to. Using hoaxes to misdirect the public's attention from legitimate grievances is an obvious tactic.
    • Basically, I find your desire to dig up pages linking these claims to mental illness - even as you claim Snow's book can't be read online (it can) - to be interesting. I also find your nitpicking over terminology to defy WP:BURO. If I created a Terrorist Stalking or Vengeance Stalking page with essentially the same content and references, and redirected the Cause Stalking page to it, what would you do?
    • All that said, I would be satisfied with getting a mention of the phrase gang stalking (even in the context of delusional belief systems) into Stalking. Then those who want to learn more can Google away, whether to have a good chuckle or to rejoice at finding like-minded individuals. It wouldn't violate WP:V and it would improve Wikipedia.Jeremystalked(law 296) 03:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are welcome to write an article on gang stalking as a delusional belief system; there is no problem in doing so, since there are reliable sources for this. The problem would be the creation of an article suggesting that it is a real phenomenon. -- The Anome (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?

[edit]
  • I notice way up the page that the Anome acknowledged the discussion concerning the reality of vengeance stalking and that is certainly a good source- why are you playing semantics and demanding to see the words cause or gang substituted for vengeance before it's good enough for you? Before that point I had assumed objectivity on your part, this inability to interpret words with a similar meaning now makes me wonder why you're being so obstructive here and felt that standing on semantics would be a legitimate position. Can you not see that each of these terms is simply a new term for Scapegoating? Why are you not on that page voiciferously protesting its existence? Or the Workplace bullying and Mobbing pages?

    It would seem you have a fixation on focusing on the mentally ill people on the internet and applying this fixation upon real issues, as the existence of the above 3 pages and the notable reference of vengeance stalking describe. Perhaps your editing efforts should be toward your interest in mental illness?Batvette (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think my point is that all of these forms of stalking by groups, workplace bullying, mobbing, scapegoating, group stalking, etc, are all the same thing and when it happens to people they don't know what to call it. You say "gang stalking in the sense commonly used on the internet" don't you really mean as displayed on the internet in various levels of credibility or lack thereof? Again you are implying this form of stalking is delusions on the part of victims by referring to people who are obviously delusional. So what is the difference between vengeance stalking, the other forms of stalking and bullying you concede is real, and cause/gang stalking as this editor is writing about? That we can now find some crazy people on the internet complaining of it? How does this affect the real issues and that this TYPE of behaviour in society is well known, no matter what the terminology currently in favor? It's obvious the development of the internet caused a venue for the delusional to validate their paranoia, and vent it as well and this does feed on itself, but that is another issue altogether.Batvette (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


      • Can I ask an additional explanation since you do seem to accept people can be stalked by groups of people, as evidenced in your comment above- why would a group of people stalk a person? Do you think a number of jilted male lovers who at various times dated the same person might somehow meet and decide to stalk their ex lover? One would think there might be insurmountable jealousy problems between them precluding such an alliance. Yet the Justice Dept stats shows this is happening in great numbers- it merely does not explain WHY they are being stalked. Perhaps you can tell us? Batvette (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding the point he was making. Batvette's source mentions very large numbers of group stalking cases occurring in the United States. What is the profile of these stalking groups? What makes sense? Are these people trying to seek a personal relationship with their targets, or are they engaging in terrorist/vengeance stalking, otherwise known as cause stalking?Jeremystalked(law 296) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing ambiguous about Batvette's statement. The claim was that the report linked shows that "jilted male lovers who at various times dated the same person ... meet and decide to stalk their ex lover". I can understand that stement perfectly well, and can also see that the report says nothing of the kind. Again, can you please cite a page number in the report that "mentions very large numbers of group stalking cases occurring in the United States"? The only mention that I can find of victims having more than one stalker is appendix table 3 on page 12, and that says nothing about such stalkers acting in concert. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I goofed in the way I phrased that. When I said "yet the justice dept says this is happening in large numbers" I meant people who claim there are 2, 3, or more people they perceive to be stalking them- and of course the scenario of 3 jilted lovers getting together to stalk one person is preposterous. (might make a good sit-com tho, like Three's Company) So the point was if there are all these people being stalked by three people or more and yet the reason it's widely cited and accepted to be stalked by ONE person (some psycho male with a fixation on a woman) is almost certainly NOT the case with the multiple stalkers, I'd love to see someone come up with a plausible rationale on what would be going on there that does not resemble cause/gang stalking? Batvette (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

User:Jeremystalked has offered above to create a gang stalking article that refers to this in the context of being a delusional belief system, something for which I believe we have sufficient reliable sources.

I think a way forward would be to add this material to the persecutory delusion article, and also to create a pointer to it from the stalking article.

Note that this does not give carte blanche to creating an article that contains assertions not supported by reliable sources -- such as, for example, the subject of that belief system having objective reality -- any such material would be covered by the WP:V and WP:UNDUE criteria, and would be speedy-deletable for that reason.

In the meantime, I'd like to formally re-propose the deletion of this article, based strictly on the WP:V criteria, and that we keep this discussion on-track relating strictly to Wikipedia's article inclusion criteria, rather than a discussion of the WP:TRUTH or otherwise of its contents. -- The Anome (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am in favor of doing exactly that with the gang stalking article, but keeping it semi-protected. If you review the history of that article, the un-verifiable claims were coming mostly from anonymous users. It may not be appropriate to put the sources into the article about persecutory delusions as even the author of the Mind Games article leaves it up in the air about what's really happening. Basically the concept of gang stalking is something that could be real for some people, while being delusional thinking for some others; representing it as a cut-and-dried case of delusion wouldn't be something I'd want in my edit history if it turned out to be really happening and got national attention.Jeremystalked(law 296) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with The Anome. To present this as factual information is both unencyclopedic and grossly irresponsible, either mocking or (even worse) reinforcing the beliefs of the mentally ill. Along these lines, if there is to be a "gang stalking" article, it needs to be titled gang stalking delusion to make completely clear that Wikipedia is not misrepresenting such delusions as reality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Along those lines, I can think of lots of articles that should be renamed to include delusion in their titles. How about god? Can you verify the existence of God? Or how about reptilians? Shouldn't both those articles be renamed to god delusion and reptilian delusion, respectively? Why are you focusing on this one particular concept to include the word delusion in the name of the article?Jeremystalked(law 296) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've heard many an argument on the existence of God, ranging from the convincing to the absurd, but I've yet to hear a "God must exist, He's on Wikipedia!" But someone who believes the government or whoever is stalking them will look for 'evidence' even in the totally random: a phone number on a passing van could have all sorts of meanings to a paranoid schitzophrenic. Finding their delusional beliefs seemingly reinforced on Wikipedia would be playing with their minds with likely tragic consequences, not to mention being antithetical to our goal of being a reliable source of verifiable information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're assuming that everyone reporting COINTELPRO style conspicuous surveillance and stalking tactics (including, possibly, unverifiable 21st century surveillance technology) must be mentally ill. Where are your reliable sources?
        • You're just as bad as the people dropping into these discussions saying, "Gang stalking is real! It is wrong to keep my belief system out of wikipedia!" To give in to your non-verifiable position or their non-verifiable position would be advocacy (WP:ADVOCACY). The truth doesn't matter, only the verifiability does (WP:VNT); and it is verifiable that there is this phenomenon many people are calling gang stalking.Jeremystalked(law 296) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, if someone told me the government (or whoever) was "stalking" them using sci-fi surveillance techniques, as a matter of fact I would assume they're suffering from mental illness, as that's pretty much the textbook example of paranoid schizophrenia. It's been said many times that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." So, let's see that extraordinary proof that you have that "gang stalking" exists as you describe it. So far (see below) the best you've come up with is a fictional novel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Bureau of Justice Statistics considers the reports of group stalking in the USA to be notable. The purpose of group stalking is almost certainly not to pursue a personal relationship with the target (can you make the case that it does?), which leaves two possible motivations: terrorizing (coercing) or getting revenge on the target. That puts it in the category of terrorist/vengeance stalking, also called cause stalking.
            • So now let's get into stalking/harassment by groups of people larger than three, which seem to involve advanced surveillance. As above, the purpose of such stalking/harassment would not be to "seek a personal relationship with the target" (classical stalking), but rather, terrorist/vengeance stalking, also called cause stalking. There have been instances of this in the past, most notably COINTELPRO. The FBI wasn't using the type of surveillance in 1970 that targets of these types of tactics are reporting today - and we can only speculate about why that is. We are reliant on the impressions of the targets to describe what kind of surveillance they are under; a given target may be misinformed or deluded about one tiny aspect of his campaign even though he is at the same time completely correct about the existence of the overall campaign.
            • Basically, you haven't really made a good case that your position is the correct one, and I would advise you to review political psychiatry. In open societies, the authorities can't usually get away with forcibly commiting obviously sane and innocent political dissidents, because that makes martyrs. One very plausible method of discrediting political dissidents in an open society would involve harassing them until they report the types of experiences that fit the definition of mental illness - as I recall, a few COINTELPRO targets fell for this trap. The whole process doesn't have to make economic sense; after all, it's only your money.
            • A gang stalking article wouldn't be asserting the above, as it isn't Wiki-true. But your position isn't Wiki-true either. Review WP:VNT; we must have respect for truth and accuracy (your position is not obviously true or accurate) but ultimately, Wiki-truth trumps truth - in Wikipedia. And the Wiki-truth is that there's some controversy over what people reporting gang stalking are actually experiencing.Jeremystalked(law 296) 09:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Bureau of Justice report cited above says nothing of the sort, as I have already explained. It includes a table that reports that a number of victims have reported being stalked by more than one person, but says nothing about whether those stalkers are acting independently or as a group. The report considers this phenomenon so unnotable that it doesn't even refer to it in the text. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • "... it says nothing about whether those stalkers are acting independently or as a group." So basically, you're suggesting that a majority of these people reporting stalking by groups of people are stalker magnets? Just to help set you straight, "There's something about Mary" is a comedy, not a documentary; it is humorous exactly because most people recognize how ridiculous the premise of the movie is. And the phenomenon of group stalking must be notable, otherwise it wouldn't be included in a table in the report, right?
                • You're grasping at straws. Jeremystalked(law 296) 02:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, but you're the one grasping at straws here, and I am suggesting nothing on the basis of that report. It neither says that multiple stalkers are acting individually, nor that they are acting in concert, so it can't be used to draw either conclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • A big chunk of what this argument is about is the offending of some Wikipedians' sensibilities. For example, User:Starblind, above, advocates getting rid of the article because he thinks the claims made could only be made by mentally ill people. This sub-thread is one attempt to show that his belief is prejudicial. I'm not going to claim that the Bureau of Justice report directly links phrases such as "gang stalking", "cause stalking", etc., to the sorts of claims that victims are making. I am claiming that the the idea that individual stalkers could just happen to converge on a single target without cooperating with each other on some level, and that this happens in a majority of the large numbers of reported cases involving group stalking, is outlandish, regardless of the report's failure to draw conclusions. What you're doing is applying encyclopedic reasoning to an argument that appeals to common sense, and that, my friend, is grasping at straws. Jeremystalked(law 296) 13:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or find a way to connect via disambiguation or redirect to the pages on mobbing, workplace bullying or scapegoating. There are references on vengeance stalking that suggest these are similar crimes. I don't think the discussion has been allowed to fully progress either. Batvette (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lock down: make it a redirect to stalking#stalking by groups and then protect it. There is a WP:RS that names cause stalking, Snow's book (stopping the stalker); keeping it as a link is in the spirit of WP:IAR. I am forced to agree that there are not enough reliable sources to support the original contentions of the article.Jeremystalked(law 296) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Finding their delusional beliefs seemingly reinforced on Wikipedia would be playing with their minds with likely tragic consequences"
    • "Because crazy people might do something bad once they see this information" is really a groundless argument, and irresponsible when you consider that you'd be hiding the reality of the crimes to those really experiencing it.
    • I think Jeremy's last proposal to a redirect to stalking by groups (and expanding it, as it sits it says nothing) is solid and should meet with The Anome's approval as he has already confirmed existence of those crimes. Batvette (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about "hiding the reality of the crimes to those really experiencing it" is not really applicable, since we do not have any evidence that meets Wikipedia's standards that "gang stalking", as described by the many non-WP:RS proponents of its existence, complete with its conspiracy theory aspects -- actually occurs in real life.
I can't stress too much the need to distinguish between belief in something, and the physical reality of that thing.
The problem I would have with making the redirect -- but, unfortunately, I think it's a show-stopper -- is that I cannot find any references from WP:RS that use the term "cause stalking". As far as I can tell, the term is a neologism, possibly invented by Lawson. It would not make any sense to me to redirect to "stalking by groups" from an idiosyncratic usage not supported by WP:RS -- it seems to me that the alleged phenomenon of "cause stalking"/"gang stalking", in its common usage on the Internet, is quite distinct from the ordinary and well-attested phenomenon of stalking by groups of people without any of the associated unfalsifiable conspiracy theory add-ons.
On the other hand, if sufficient WP:RS existed to justify the creation of a gang stalking article, I'd be happy to have a link from cause stalking to that article, since they are both commonly-used terms for the same thing. -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I found a number of books on amazon that do not appear to be self published. My life changed forever Bridging the Gap 1996 Snitch Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batvette (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1996 is the strongest card in that hand. The publisher, Third World Press, is not a vanity press; the author, Gloria Naylor, has several books to her name. She also won a National Book Award in 1983. The book is described by the publisher as a fictionalized memoir of events that happened to the author - 'fictionalized', I take it, to obscure the identity of players in her story who might sue her. 1996 doesn't mention any kind of stalking by name, but it does report on conspicuous surveillance and mind control, the sorts of things that are associated with reports of gang stalking.
Snitch culture is a useful reference and WP:RS but it doesn't talk about terrorist/political stalking or any of its variations.
Bridging the Gap is published by CreateSpace, which advertises self-publishing services. My life changed forever... is published by Infinity Publishing - another vanity press. Other editors on this thread can (and would) verify this information in a matter of seconds. Just because the information in the books might seem reasonable, even assembling itself into encyclopedic-quality summaries in our minds, doesn't mean it's going to pass muster around these parts. Maybe if someone did an anime series about gang stalking... ;-) Jeremystalked(law 296) 10:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that rules all of them out as possible sources for this article. Although 1996 is not self-published, a book that blurs the boundaries between fact and fiction can't reasonably be used as a factual source, since we can't possibly tell which is which. -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Donner's book on Red Squads also had many parallels to this:

Protectorsof privilledgeBatvette (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Parallels" are not enough. I can't see anything in the Google books preview of Protectors of Privilege that backs up the assertions in this article. -- The Anome (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion based on original article creator's comments

[edit]

I have just noted that User:Jeremystalked said above, on the 2nd, that "I am forced to agree that there are not enough reliable sources to support the original contentions of the article". As he was the original creator of the article, and there are no other contributors other than Jeremystalked and myself, unless there is evidence that this is no longer the case (and I can't see any in the discussion above), I'd suggest that this pretty much closes the issue. -- The Anome (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm only conceding the article needs to be revised; for example, it could be kept as a redirect to Stalking#stalking by groups. There is a reliable source linking cause stalking to terrorist/vengeance stalking, Snow's book. It's fair to, at the very least, keep cause stalking as a redirect. Remember, Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not apply to the titles of redirects: see WP:RNEUTRAL.Jeremystalked(law 296) 02:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name.2

[edit]

So since The Anome has graciously conceded that there are criminal acts being perpetrated against individuals, or the ordinary and well attested phenomen of stalking by groups of people, I would like him to kindly provide the name of this activity, and at least one reference to it that meets wiki standards, so we can begin to work on this page. Since the justice department concedes these crimes as well I for one am dying to know why they're doing this and who they are. If we don't give these crimes he's talking about some attention we at wikipedia would be irresponsible as a source of information.Batvette (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're not listening, are you? We've already had the discussions about whether this is a "well attested phenomenon" and whether the justice department "concedes these crimes" and no evidence has been presented for either proposition. It is getting really tiresome having the same claims repeated again and again without any evidence. Once again, the report that you linked above says absolutely nothing about stalkers acting in concert. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no truth; there is only wiki-truth. There's a term for using Wikipedia policies and culture (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, etc...) as a shield to defend an editor's belief systems from intrusions by reality - WP:WIKILAWYERING.
    • I'm not going to get into whether there is a reliable source, anywhere, that satisifies Wikipedians' prejudices - I've seen reliable sources attacked elsewhere on the basis of WP:FRINGE because the conclusions did not sit well with some editors - and that link the phrase "gang stalking" or "cause stalking" directly to the sorts of assertions made in the original article. I'm simply going to point out that at a bare minimum, WP:RNEUTRAL applies; "cause stalking" is the sort of terminology that is "out there", in the wild, and mentioned in at least one Reliable Source; and linking it to Stalking#stalking by groups would not yield misleading results. Deleting the article is over-reacting. Jeremystalked(law 296) 15:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cause_stalking&oldid=1224325684"