Talk:Stalking/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requests rewording and linking

In the false claims section there's a line that mentions "reports" by "external observers" which I can't find a source for, I think it should be reworded not to form a misleading impression. I also found this link which describes similar techniques to the ones being described by some people as "gang stalking", but in an entirely different context. I thought about putting that link in the "Psychological" section on the harassment entry, then linking that section here, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Please note that the links on the harassment article are outdated and should probably be edited, too. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think if you want that link on wiki it would be a lot more appripriate in the gaslighting article. Really has nothing to do with stalking. Interesting piece though, seems like the KGB still thinks the cold war is on. Or wants another. Batvette (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That's really not the point. Like I said, these "reports" mentioned in the article are not sourced, and the external article I linked above describes the same techniques in the "psychological" section of the harassment entry, the one informally known (but not cited!) as gang stalking. I also went later and checked the book, turns out it did include stalking, or literally being "tailed by men in cheap leather jackets", I agree it's irrelevant here but I still find the rewording necessary. As for the Gaslighting article, it doesn't seem to have a section for known cases, for example. I don't want to create one unless if there are other examples. Good day! UnluckyClover77 (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References number 27 and 28 are the references you seem to have missed. You will find the wording in the section matches that in the references. Are you objecting to what the observors say or that they are called reports by external observors? If so what would you like us to describe them as? Is the reason for your concern disagreement with their analysis? As for being followed by men in cheap leather jackets, the targets were embassy personnel... you've heard of spying?Not sure why we would want to confuse espionage with stalking?Batvette (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I did see the references, and I can't find that wording. Who is considered an "external observer"? Is it the person who wrote the article? Is it someone on this wiki? because it shouldn't be. There isn't any reference mentioning -say- a random sample of people that agree these claims are not objective for it to be called "reports", which I find very misleading. Where exactly did that wording match the reference, anyway? UnluckyClover77 (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) On second thought, both articles attribute the term "stalking" to "delusions of targeting by government spies" so I'm not the one mixing the two, and please don't bother with the article I mentioned earlier because it doesn't seem to fit here, I just thought it was worth mentioning. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)I know this is weird, but on a THIRD though...Have YOU read reference 27? Read all of it, not just the parts you want to read. It's long but it's actually very neutral...Unlike the paragraph on this article. Also, I noticed you were asking about my opinion; No, I don't believe a portable government device can be used to control someone's mind...How's that relevant? UnluckyClover77 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This section is a real survivor…

Yes, the false allegations section. Please pardon my apparent –yet false- determination to get this thing off the page, and of course my limited knowledge of Wikipedia rules, but we all have to start somewhere. I combined a list of everything I found questionable about this section, feel free to answer to each point individually. (And please stop asking for personal opinions, thank you.)UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Is “gang stalking” relevant to this page? Does it add any encyclopaedic value? Would it be better on another page? Would it be better if it wasn’t on any page? Please discuss.UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

According to references 27 and 28, “gang stalking” is a common term referring to a growing community on the internet that describes a detailed, unbacked claim of continuous surveillance and harassment of so-called “targeted individuals”. These alleged harassment methods include gas-lighting techniques, stalking by neighbours and several “mind control” weapons that seem to combine several other theories. Does this sound correct so far? And if it is, would that be relevant to this page? Which -of course- describes stalking in a legal sense. If that was incorrect in any way, is it at all possible to deduce a definition of “gang stalking” from the two available sources? To include on this page maybe?UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the sources, especially 27. They don’t exactly arrive at the same conclusion stated on this page, but rather they mention each point of view, and mostly without compromise. They may have some hints of sarcastic undertones, but who am I to judge?UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand these two sources are -by definition- reliable, yes, but they’re not scientific research, and they’re not legal papers, they are news articles; they’re more than enough at asserting “who said what”, and not “which one is correct”. I believe claiming an entire community on the internet is exhibiting paranoid, delusional behaviour requires separate scientific research or individualized psychiatric evaluation, especially when no actual legal investigation has been conducted. I could be wrong though… UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it notable? It seems that Wikipedia has less strict notability rules when it comes to sections (instead of entire articles), but there’s a word for that, hijacking. I don’t see the point of a page notability criteria if you can turn that page into a section in another article (which basically does the same job of including it on the wiki). If this section is notable enough, doesn’t that warrant its own page? Even a stub?UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I’m not sure I get the last two lines. Is FAVS a real syndrome? Do any other sources exist? These two lines are rather confusing, if you understand them, please articulate. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to respond here to all the issues listed above. I would favor removing the sentence/paragraph about FAVS, because that term has not been taken up in the literature even though the book is 14 years old. The rest of the material in the section is appropriate for this article and appropriately sourced. The consensus in the medical and legal community is that people with paranoid schizophrenia frequently believe they are being stalked, and that these delusions account for a substantial percentage of stalking allegations. This article would be incomplete if it did not report that consensus. Looie496 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Indeed, those sources do not support or document that gang stalking is a real phenomenon, and the subject of those pieces is reflected in the content used from them.Batvette (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I would surmise one reason the gangstalking issue appears on this page is because this is the page its believers kept trying to push their agenda on. If you look over this talk page and its archives carefully you can review the efforts to create an article addressing it and the results of those discussions. The atmosphere at wiki has not changed nor have any reliable sources surfaced documenting it so don't expect any changes soon. Batvette (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but if you don't want someone to include unverifiable information about a conspiracy theory to this article, then place a warning on the talk page saying so. Don't use two opinion pieces to cite something that is so poorly researched and unsubstantial to the article, just to shut them up. I'm genuinely hoping that you have another (good) reason to do so. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• LOL, you must be new here. First I am not the one who created the content in the first place so it is silly you are trying to instruct me what I should or shouldn't do. Second and more importantly did you miss where I informed you that this part of the article is the result of a long series of pushing and pulling by various editors and its appearance now is the result of editorial consensus? So you come along and don't like what you see, well imposing your view is going to be over the work of about a dozen people who came to agreement that it could stand as it is.

Your basic disagreement is that the idea of gangstalking is being ridiculed and doubted, (and while ad hominem comments are frowned upon, it must be said) the only people who insist on promoting this seem to be crank conspiracy theorists and those suffering from delusions. Wikipedia as a whole resists attempts by such people to use it as a soapbox to reinforce their beliefs. Back to the point, it is completely verifiable that paranoid conspiracy theorists believe they are being stalked by groups of people. That is why it appears in the stalking article.Batvette (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

• I guess you're not the same person whose first wiki edit was on the microwave auditory effect page, adding "alleged to be" to "suffering from auditory hallucinations"?

And you certainly couldnt be the same person who long ago wrote on another editors page: "my problem would be the line describing "gang stalking" as a "belief system" instead of an objective phenomenon by external observers. There are no examples of these reports, which I believe should be described in the utmost detail, or at the very least have their own source instead of just glossing over it. There is a much bigger issue, however; just because something is dismissed by doctors or even scientists in general as delusions, doesn't mean it should be described as such, and only as such, in an encyclopedia." Please don't patronize me. You have an agenda, you aren't the first. Thank you and have a splendid day.Batvette (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes. I said I was new here. People have to start somewhere. The microwave auditory effects page is citing the same conspiracy theory nonsense that I find to be very un-encyclopedic (And yes, like all other new editors I had the impression I could just go there and edit it, apparently that's not the case. Sorry!). Also, these sources are not even enough to say that something is dismissed by doctors because they are OPINION PIECES and they don't cite any research, I just didn't notice that back then (Nobody seems to notice that either, I just knew that several things were very wrong with them, turns out they were just presenting the writers' opinions. I'm a college student and I know if I cite something like that they would have my head for it, that's all XD). The fact I'm interested in the topic and find the source unreliable doesn't mean I have an agenda (People who have agendas don't correct spelling mistakes on two different wikis). If you have scientific research, please present it, if you don't, I already presented my solution which is to remove the conspiracy-blah-blah I believe should not be in any self-respecting publication that is meant as a source of info. (But that's my opinion). If you don't find a source, and you don't agree with my opinion (and also still think I have an agenda), then please have a tall glass of water and chill because then I won't edit this page -or anything related to it- again ever. I'm not patronizing you! Why are you the one making personal attacks and then freaking out when I try to respond? UnluckyClover77 (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand where you're coming from, really! But please stop deviating from the topic, that's no way to make a point. UnluckyClover77 (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC) To make a long story short, if I don't have proof of something, I don't just keep attacking it because it's against "common sense" or because weak sources attack it as well, I don't assume that it is correct because of an "agenda", either. In other words, I don't present either views as objective, inarguable information. But then again, that's all me. I don't know how it goes around here.UnluckyClover77 (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

More useful cite sources for "gang stalking" section

This recent Motherboard article is a good source of citable material and quotes for this section. In particular, it cites this recent New York Times story: -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology Remini tv series - Organize Stalking

Anyone seen the tv series? It shows Scientologist stalking ex members (Mike Rinder, Leah Remini etc). Anyone care to make references of the series to add to the wiki article (under Organize Stalking)? I cant write well.

--Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.94.11 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ingress stalking

This seems to be an legitimate albeit unusual example of stalking, occurring as it does using third party apps in an augmented reality game for illicit gaming advantage. Thoughts? "Ingress Players Use Unofficial Tools To Stalk One Another". kotaku.com. Retrieved 9 November 2017.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

Complete meaning of stalking

Stalking is one of the most difficult crimes to prove because it is largely subjective. Stalking is made up of a series of actions that, by themselves, are legal but with the intent to harass are illegal. For example, leaving a woman flowers, calling her or waiting outside of her office are all legal actions. Rehabak (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see several problems with this:

1. Is this a reliable source? It certainly doesn't look like one.
2. What you say appears to only apply to certain jurisdictions. Whether stalking is a crime, and how that crime is defined, differ between jurisdictions.
3. You have not been explicit about where you want this text to be placed.

Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing edit request, the source is a self-published source, would be good to point to a better source for this claim. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

New gang stalking article

• Gang stalking

I set up this article. Previously that name redirected here, to "stalking". There has been regular discussion on this topic on this talk page and elsewhere for years. Check out the documentation which I posted on the talk page there for details. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

History of stalking as a concept

This paper presents a history of stalking.

• Mullen, Paul E.; Pathé, Michele; Purcell, Rosemary (February 2001). "Stalking: New Constructions of Human Behaviour". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 35 (1): 9–16. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00849.x.

The claim that I think is most likely to surprise future generations is that stalking is a social concept which appeared in the 1990s. Before that time, there was no commonly accepted term for the general behavior. This paper tries to make a history of related concepts, like Virgil writing poetry to Beatrice, but is unable to find early accounts of stalking either in academic writing or the popular press. Right now there is a definitions section. I added some of this information there. That section could be reframed more as history using this source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible Addition: Measuring Stalking / Stalking Indices

I'm looking to make my first edit and I've had a few ideas I just want to create some dialogue so I get some different opinions!

While the Stalking page currently refers to definitions and psychological motivations behind stalking, there is no discussion of the measurement of stalking or the extent to which stalking behaviors can influence the survivor's mentality aside from changes or disruptions to their daily life.

The Stalking Assessment Indices (SAI) is a relatively new (2020) method of measuring stalking from the perspective of both perpetrators and survivors . Previous indices used may include the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ) and the Relation Rumination Questionnaire (RelRQ) which are all also mentioned in the 2020 McEwan, Simmons, Clothier, & Senkans article.

EVGrous1125 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be much better if this were based on secondary sources - for example an independent review article that compares measurement methods. We need some indication that people beyond the authors who proposed these methods accept them as valid and have been using them. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The older models have certainly been criticized as being not wholly encompassing of survivors' experiences. The SAI-P/V was (I believe) developed as a direct response to these older models. I have found two instances in which the SAI-P/V has been used since it's conception in 2020. In both of these cases, a study of Post Relationship Stalking (PRS) and a study on the stalking of 'Professionals' one of the original contributors participated in the newer (2021) studies, would these be better resources to include? EVGrous1125 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No, since those are the same authors. We should have independent secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

References

China section

"Even celebrities may not be able to solve it for a long time when faced with stalking of illegitimate meals."

What?

"In the case of Wuhu, Anhui in March 2018, the entangled woman repeatedly rescued the police to no avail and was eventually killed."

Huh? 162.251.16.246 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The illustration that accompanies the article

There’s something frankly creepy about the illustration used in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking#/media/File:Paul_Rader_-_Over_Exposed_-_1962.jpg

Paul Rader was a talented artist who often painted soft-erotica-style pin-up pictures for pulp books and things “True Detective”. He illustrated covers for titles like “Sex Kitten”, “Sea Nymph”, “69 Pleasures”, and - the picture used in the article - “Over Exposed”.

Anyway, the point is that his pictures were partly designed to be titillating and arousing, so the addition of an illustration like this into an article about stalking is bizarrely insensitive.

It’s not about thinking of people’s “feelings” - one is of course aware that an encyclopedia has be be objective and cold, in a sense, but this illustration just doesn’t seem to be appropriate. Charliepenandink (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I came here to suggest exactly the same thing. It looks like the image was recently changed (July 2023) because a user found the old photo inappropriate but I think the new one is just as bad or worse. They also probably should have put a comment here rather than just in the comments when making the revision. I would support reverting, changing to another image or removing. I'm not entirely sure this article is improved with an image. The Manual of Style for lead images MOS:IMAGELEAD states "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Master z0b (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The illustration is not appropriate to the encyclopia and I am deleting it. David J Johnson (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2025

Males are less likely to report stalking than females due to social norms and the fear that they may not get taken seriously by authorities. 195.254.232.134 (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Reverting Good Faith Edits - Complaints and Stalkers

I made a revision, removing copy from a source by Mary Rowe. It is about how complaints employees should deal with delusional people, although you would not know that from the content on the page. I did this because:

- the copy is a interpretation of the source material that poorly interprets it - it quotes a source that includes no secondary research and therefore has no citations at all - it includes no primary research - it is therefore completely opinion based and arbitrary - it's barely possible to argue it is relevant and it is definitely not reliable - it therefore makes serious suggestions such as people who escalate complaints excessively are stalkers, but offers zero evidence of this

My edit was reverted. Whilst I am sure that was in good faith, I do not feel that was justified if the source material had been not just properly read, but critiqued in terms of whether it was just an opinion or was based on proper research. It lacks any academic integrity, other than being peer reviewed.

I did not initially open a discussion on the talk page, because due to the above reasons, I was astounded. I choose instead to try and tell the readers why caution should be taken over what was written by whoever interpreted it and try and make it slightly more reflective of the source, which is ultimately unreliable. That was reverted and again, whilst hopefully in good faith, for reasons stated I believe that was wrong.

The copy is unreliable and misleading and I invite the person who reverted it (User:Acroterion) and others to comment further, so we can help keep Wikipedia a reliable source of information.

Thanks.

LateFatherKarma (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless the user in question or others can provide valid reasons for its inclusion after reading why I believe strongly it needs to go or be significantly edited, I'd appreciate them reversing their revert! If no response is received in the next week, I may reinstate my previous edits. Thanks.

No stalkers allowed 😊

LateFatherKarma (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is a low quality source for the statements made in the article. Editors should review WP:MEDRS (because the source is talking about delusions) and WP:MEDASSESS. "Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided."

The way the article here is written is definitely WP:OR. For example, if the citation doesn't compare what they're talking about to stalking, then it shouldn't be compared to stalking here. The article here also needs to more clearly indicate that these are "reported cases" and "anecdotes". The people in the cases were also not diagnosed with anything, it looks like. The authors just claim they had delusions. Some of the people they label as delusional clearly aren't even delusional, like people who have "free speech" complaints which others find "intrusive, harassing or frightening". (In other words, people who are obnoxious, not delusional).

Overall, it's just not at all a source which is MEDRS-compliant for the type of statements made in the article here. The subject matter is interesting, but a better source should be found (like a review) indicating why it's relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to discuss. Once your edit has been reverted, it is incumbent to come here and explain your change in sufficient detail. I agree that the reference in question is primarily based on anecdote as an introduction to the author's main points about appropriate handling of a potentially false or delusional complaint, but that doesn't immediately invalidate it as a reference, or mean that the content is invalid. That appears to be the chief basis of your concern, rather than that it is not factual or that the author is not a subject matter authority. The source is more concerned with ways in which such complaints should be handled with appropriate respect for the alleged victim rather than attaching a diagnosis. As such, it is more tangential than invalid.

While WP:MEDRS might have a role to play since part of this article involves a discussion of psychological conditions that may lead people to assert they're being stalked when they're not, the overall subject of the article is about a course of conduct by people accused of stalking, which may be based on criminality or mental health issues. The delusional victim angle is covered in greater detail at gang stalking, with more and better sources, since that is more commonly associated with paranoid perceptions - "everybody's out to get me." My objection to LateFatherKarma's edits was based on rejection of sources in edit summaries without discussion, rather than seeking consensus first. There are probably better sources, but in a not-specifically-medical article, we don't expect rigorously peer-reviewed references, so it's not clear-cut as a bad source. I doubt anybody is going to want to declare that this article falls under MEDRS scope, but MEDRS sources would tend to be preferred when discussing psychological conditions. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't realise that I am supposed to start a discussion if citation/copy is removed and although I am a new user I still do not feel that is always necessary. I apologise if that bothered you. What people reading this are told is that people who complain and won't let it go, may go on to engage in behaviour that is defined as illegal stalking. That's quite a significant claim. I would hope that a subject matter expert, would realise the importance not of stating anything without basis. They are unlikely to be medically qualified but do appear to label people with serious mental illnesses. That is not ok and may stem from bias. I have attempted to find something that shows that complaining people who won't drop it become stalkers or share similar personality traits to stalkers but I cannot find anything searching on Google or searching academic articles. I therefore feel the claims made should not be included, as there appears to be nothing to support this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You are placing an interpretation on the source and the content that I don't think is warranted or obvious, but rather represents a personal point of view. As a broad manifestation of obsessive behavior, there is certainly overlap between stalking and people who perceive that they're being stalked. Whether that is appropriate due weight in this particular article is another matter, which should be the focus of potential inclusion or exclusion on the basis of Wikipedia policy, rather than an argument that it is some form of inappropriate labeling. See WP:DUE for discussion on due weight for a path to that sort of concern. And please read WP:BURDEN, which requires that you convince other editors of the validity of your concerns, rather than requiring other editors to convince you that your edits should not be reverted or contested, as your statement Unless the user in question or others can provide valid reasons for its inclusion after reading why I believe strongly it needs to go or be significantly edited, I'd appreciate them reversing their revert! If no response is received in the next week, I may reinstate my previous edits implies. That's not how consensus works. I think you have a point on the basis of emphasis, but I don't agree with the reasoning behind it - I am more concerned with due or undue emphasis, rather than potential for some kind of stigmatization. Acroterion (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, when I referred to the claim made, I was referring to what the article says, the fact the source offers no evidence of this and nothing I can find online supports the assertion that people that significantly escalate complaints may go on to engage in stalking behaviour. In your reply you referred to there being an association between stalking and people who think they are being stalked. That is not content in this Wikipedia article, although it is somewhat discussed in the source. Given that, I am unsure why you have mentioned it? This is not about my personal perspective. I assure you I am only focused on what is said in the article, what the source material says and the relevancy and reliability of that source. Respectfully, I am not sure discussing anything else is useful. LateFatherKarma (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I mean this, from the article, which I believe you've found problematic: "People who complain obsessively and for years, about a perceived wrong or wrong-doer, when no one else can perceive the injury—and people who cannot or will not "let go" of a person or a place or an idea—comprise a wider group of persons that may be problematic in ways that seem similar to stalking." (my emphasis) That is the overlap of which I am speaking, and what Rowe is talking about when she discusses "people with delusions or quasi-delusions who won't let go" (from the title) Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about keeping content on a page that is taken from a journal where the subject is how complaints people deal with people they have labelled delusional, because there is an assumption/opinion expressed by a subject matter expert that people who will not drop complaints may become stalkers, leave it on the page. I have made my feelings known, that there is nothing in the source material that makes that true, based on data or on reliable research. I would prefer to spend my time on Wikipedia trying to contribute positively to articles. LateFatherKarma (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

As I noted, you may have a point, and I'm willing to be convinced, but not on the basis of your assumption/opinion that the content in the journal is assumption/opinion, but rather within the framework of WIkipedia policy on due emphasis. Don't make assumptions about other editors either. And stop putting the connected contributor template on this page, it's not appropriate, and you're being disruptive with it. Demanding that you not be warned appropriately about it on your talkpage doesn't immunize you against warnings from other editors, for which we are required to notify you there. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion has now commenced on the conflict of interest noticeboard. The content discussed here previously is a separate matter and I have said I am not willing to pursue improving the article by trying to remove copy from unreliable sources to this particular subject anymore. I also do not want to engage further in the discussion about this. Please stop repeatedly posting on my talk page and attempting to make me reiterate why I made the article edit. As a new editor I have no interest in the current exchange that is occurring between us continuing and would like to focus my efforts on contributing positively to Wikipedia.LateFatherKarma (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2025 (

Acroterion is an admin so you should just do what they say when it comes to procedure and policy. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not want to mention that while discussing content, it comes across as some sort of supervote, and I would not act directly short of some really egregiously obvious issue., which doesn't exist in this case. Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

We appreciate that. I was mostly reacting to the disagreement over the conflict of interest. I also don't think the content issue here is important enough to be arguing about it with any kind of intensity. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)