Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Its definition (references' dissection)

A few days ago I proposed a few changes (3 terms), but some editors showed up rejecting them. Before reading here, you may want to read that discussion (right above this one) which has been misteriously closed, in order to get an idea of their hostility. This discussion is still about those same changes, yet now I'm going to give a dissection of the references because it looks like I'm the only one noting they reflect my suggested changes.

I'm going to be as short and simple yet accurate as possible mentioning what is self-evident (the terminology), and proving that my proposed changes are necessary. Obviously, since any terms appearing in the references doesn't mean their use is mandatory (however, all the terminology I'm pointing to, is in context), what I'm doing here is inviting you to consult the references (it takes less than a couple of hours, at most) carefully and neutrally which I doubt you did.

The first reference is a 5 minutes television report, the second reference is a 5 pages written article, the third reference is a 1600 words article, and the fourth reference is an 800 words article. I'm going to use the same three bullets I used in the original discussion as the general index. I only swapped the word "alleged" with "purpoted" because that's the current version of the article now (someone else edited in the meantime, yet it does not affect my changes at all).

• It's not about purported devices that exclusively make use of electromagnetic waves, thus we would be better using the term Directed-energy weapons (indeed this term does appear)

My proposition is that their claims are not only about EM waves, and most importantly that they are more about devices (specifically weapons) rather than waves.

First reference:

- No mention.

Second reference:

1. The first page cites "weapon/s" once.
2. The second page cites "weapon/s" twice.
3. The third page cites "weapon/s" 3 times with the 3rd being "Directed-energy weapons".
4. The fourth page cites "weapon/s" twice and "directed energy" once. The term "sound wave" is cited twice.
5. The fifth page cites "weapon/s" 15 times with 2 times being "Directed-energy weapons", and once "Directed Energy".

Third reference:

1. The word "weapons" is cited twice.
2. The word "weaponry" is cited once.

Fourth reference:

1. The word "weapons" is cited 4 times.
2. The word "weaponry" is cited once.
3. The word "sound" is cited twice.

• It's also about torture because the claims denote control over the purpoted victim and the unability to defend, rather than something that disturbs, upsets, or constitutes a threat (indeed the term "torture" does appear)

My proposition is that the claims are not just about harassment, but also torture.

First reference:

1. At 2:14 the billboard reads "Electronic harassment = Torture".
2. At 3:17 the same billboard is shown again.

Second reference:

1. The fifth page mentions the words "torturing" and "torture".

Third reference:

1. The word "torture" is mentioned once.
2. The word "torturers" is mentioned once.
3. The word "tortured" is mentioned twice.

Fourth reference:

- No mention.

• It's a purpoted covert activity because it entirely belongs to secrecy being that hidden identities and locations, and invisible and silent "bullets" are purpotedly involved (indeed the term "covert" does appear)

My proposition is that the claims emphasize the covert nature of these purpoted activities.

First reference:

1. At 2:22 the word "covert" is both shown on screen and in the background, and it's pronunced by the president of the advocacy group.
2. At 2:38 the word "covert" appears again in the background, and it's pronunced by the journalist.
3. At 2:42 the word "covert" appears again on the advocacy website as well as on the background.
4. At 2:56 the word "covert" appears again in the background.

Second reference:

1. The third page mentions the word "covert" once.

Third reference:

1. The word "covert" is mentioned twice.

Fourth reference:

- No mention.

So in conclusion, the current definition is: "Electronic harassment is the purpoted use of electromagnetic waves to harass a victim".

But it should be: "Electronic harassment is the purpoted use of Directed-energy weapons to covertly harass and torture a victim".

There you have it. As you can see I'm not inventing anything. Now you guys forming the consensus, you either rationally demonstrate where I'm wrong, or let me help building the encyclopedia. Don't let your pride get in the way again, be brave! Clinicallytested (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

While it may be that that "directed-energy weapons", "covert", and "torture" are the words most often promoted in crank websites on the subject, Wikipedia is not required to define or describe a fringe topic in the words of the fringe proponents themselves. Scouring the sources to find how many times certain words appear isn't adequate justification for including them in the lead sentence. For example, the word "delusion" appears most often (dozens and dozens of times) in our sources, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the definition contained in the first sentence of Wikipedia's article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is adequate justification! We don't just pick what we like, we got to pick what the references say. "Crank websites"? I'm talking about the references here. "Dozens and dozens of times"??? I counted them: 14 times across all 4 references. But the word "delusional" appears 4 times already in the article! If you are willing to add the word "delusional" to the definition propose it: if consensus is on your side you get it. It's that easy. What I don't understand is how does the absence of the word "delusional" constitute a reason for not adding "directed-energy weapons", "covert", and "torture". If something is wrong is wrong, and if you believe "delusional" should be added to the definition as well, then go for it but don't use it as an excuse to deligitimate my appropriate contributions. You either rationally and according to the rules demonstrate I'm wrong or you just refrain and don't try to trick me. Clinicallytested (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The test is not whether you're "inventing" word counts, it's whether you're misinterpreting the sources. My view is that you are drawing a false inference as to the mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup. This article, per Wikipedia policy, will reflect what mainstream sources have to say on the subject matter and not what proponents of the fringe conspiracy theory would like it to say - the existing lede is a perfectly adequate summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And, with that, can we move on please, this is a giant waste of time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Either me or you guys are drawing a false inference and/or misinterpreting the sources. However, what you just did is WP:VOTE. As stated in the other discussion, I don't think these 3 terms overturn the original definition. What I think they do is to describe much more appropriately according to the references. Don't they? If they don't, I invite you to elaborate. I see bad faith (maybe you are not even aware of it at this point because it frankly is unreal) because it's not that they make the purpoted victims look less bollocks and even so it would be just collateral I guess (because we need to stick to the references in the first place). But is it really so? Adding "torture" makes them more mentally ill, and adding "directed-energy weapons" and "covert" makes their illness more elaborated which translates into more severeness. Most importantly, we are supposed to represent the references not our personal fantasies. Clinicallytested (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Crime project tag

This clearly has nothing to do with this article it seems to me and a few other editors. Really, there is no mention of crime in the article is there? This is about a mental illness, which, I don't think is a crime. Oh and please stop edit warring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I would better moving on if you are not willing to elaborate your evidence (if any at all). For the sake of compassion, I'm just going to say its definition (which you defend so vemently in the above discussion) is very clear about being a purpoted harassment (which is a crime), and that this article has been part of the Crime project since 2010 while has never been part of the Psychology project. This really is a giant waste of time. Clinicallytested (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point you need to accept that four other editors disagree with you. Longevity isn't a valid reason to keep an inappropriate Wikiproject Crime banner on the Talk page. And the word "harassment" being in the article title isn't a valid reason for Wikipedia to categorize the topic as a crime (e.g. alien "abduction"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As we seem to have consensus that the banner does not belong could someone now remove it? I have 2 reverts already. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we need some admin attention here. Shall we post on AN and ask for a looksee?

Our edit warring friend has been blocked for three months. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking into the background to this, the crime project tag was added when the article was a whole different beast - a dreadful bit of synthesis [1] which gave an unsourced definition of 'electronic harrassment', followed by nothing but a couple of primary-source paragraphs on laws passed in the United States regarding (amongst other things) electronic devices or weapons - laws more obviously referring to tazers and the like. The suggestion that improperly-synthesised content from 2010 somehow justifies a 2015 tag in an article which (correctly) makes no mention of the original supposed justification for the tags is frankly absurd. This article isn't about crime, it is about delusional beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubious citation

The surprisingly fringe material cited to the "Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 2003. 18 October 2007" by Carole Smith cannot be verified as being published in that journal (and seems only to be available on fringe sites like "www.globalresearch.ca") so I have reverted inclusion of it per WP:EXCEPTIONAL along with other additions that place WP:UNDUE weight on fringe ideas. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The journal does not go so far back as 2003 online, I will attempt to verify either by contacting the publisher or the author and asking for further information on it. There is also this. Fairly citing all sides of an argument when they are given from reputable sources, e.g. Dr. Duncan, Colin, various news sources, etc. is not WP:UNDUE. Baphy93 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If the reliability of a source is queried, and cannot be resolved on the relevant talk page, the matter should be raised at WP:RSN - contacting the publisher and/or author is pointless, as we do not accept personal communications as evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, not only is 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' not a reliable source, but under no circumstances must a link to a video uploaded by anyone but the copyright holder be cited. We never link to copyright violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the Journal of Pakistan Medical Association to say anything about its usual reliability, but that is an opinion piece, which is not peer reviewed. Furthermore, the source it cites for these supposed "bioelectromagnetic weapons" is the Institute of Science in Society, a pseudoscience organization. Kolbasz (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is not Ventura where he is featured but Duncan. It's noteworthy IMO. Even if some think the source is dubious does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, the same is alleged in other places, e.g. Duncan. Again, it is noteworthy and is not given undue weight in its representation. Baphy93 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If necessary I will create a separate section for the sake of accuracy on the subject. Baphy93 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you cite a source, that is the source you are citing. No more, no less. As for weight, see WP:FRINGE - Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I already read it, my additions were appropriate. The citation of the show is valid as it is a citation of Duncan and mention of him relative to the subject. Baphy93 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Electronic harassment Laws

Reading the sources, the talk page archives, and the editing hystory, I think it should be mentioned there are laws against harmful uses of electronic devices. Before being hijacked by conspiracy theorists (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&oldid=409995283) the article was all about them indeed. It seems as there're two parties: one claims secret services are beaming voices into their heads (conspiracy theories), the other claims it's a new technological form of harassment. WalterDariusHolmes (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart is correct noting the mainstream media describe it through the claims rather than through recognized illnesses. And it's interesting to notice, the same mainstream psychiatrist (Vaghuan Bell) involved in interpreting this topic ([2] and [3]) is the same one involved in describing the Martha_Mitchell_effect, which is about psychiatrists not being able to distinguish between an ill condition and an unlikely to happen event taking place [4].

JuanFexi73 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As noted in an earlier section, both of the posts above come from sockpuppets of Nobody Too (talk · contribs). Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

Long request (wikitext of entire article including categories) removed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thinkiggi (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)thinkiggi

Please get some experience with how Wikipedia works before suggesting complex changes to articles like this. Text must follow the principles of WP:FRINGE and use reliable sources. Commentary from editors is never inserted into an article because it is original research. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

• Please do not paste the whole article into an edit request. The change wanted in the second request was to add the following text. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

New weapons and other technologies using the electromagnetic spectrum have been developed for electronic warfare and have strong potential for undetected abuse among those with the means, motive and opportunity. Electronic warfare “includes three major subdivisions: electronic attack (EA), electronic protection (EP), and electronic warfare support (ES). EA involves the use of EM energy, directed energy, or antiradiation weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability and is considered a form of fires”

References

Thinkiggi (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

An edit request should be for a simple change that is likely to be accepted by other editors. I do not think the above proposal is suitable because it involves references talking about electronic warfare while this article concerns unsubstantiated ideas relating to claimed effects of electromagnetic waves on a person. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Electronic torture"?

Electronic harassment alone is misleading. Everybody thinks of online harassment (internet, cyberbullying, pornography). The term "torture" is mentioned much more accross the sources. I also found this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_who_complained_of_electronic_torture_by_illegally_implanted_microchi/ I think the first sentence should mention "electronic torture" in brackets. Don't you think so? Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That is an extreme presentation of the delusional beliefs, and unless we have multiple sources claiming this, it won't go in. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's correct. Harassment is mentioned twice as much. But considering the psychiatric view pushing I thought it was fair. Edit: in the end, why mention torture at all, if it's just a form of harassment. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried googling "electronic harassment" news? Then have you checked how many links point to harassment via electromagnetic waves? They are mostly about internet related fellonies. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "psychiatric view pushing". There is no such thing as use of electromagnetic waves to harass people. It's not physically possible and it's pretty clearly delusional. Feel free to discuss the real-world issues of online harassment at other, more appropriate articles. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

New source

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/05/17/gang-stalking-and-electronic-mind-control-community-spreads-online/ Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong article. That is standard harassment or potentially trolling. This article is about the fictional topic of harassment using electromagnetic signals. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is some mention of delusions of electronic harassment towards the end with a link to the same NYT article that our WP article currently cites, but I don't see anything new or useful to add to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)