Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Merged material from Talk:Psychotronics_(conspiracy_theory) to target article's archive - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Severe Bias and assumption present while leaving out evidence and pertinent facts. Why?

This article and all others related to claims of "targeting", "torture", and harassment" of individuals and groups by governments and/or corporations are written in manner suggesting that the author has researched the subject and is presenting the unassailable "truth", but the authors always leave out any subjects, books, aspects, studies, evidence and references that would allow people to fairly examine these claims. The volume of material left out that supports missing perspective is so egregious that it really looks like a deliberate "cover-up". For Instance, there are a plethora of psychotronic weapons that are currently known, publicly patented and widely used and known. Also , Senator Dennis Kucinich introduced a bill to outlaw use of such weapons of American citizenship without their consent. Why introduce a bill for non-existent wweapons? Look up "non-lethal" weaponry and some patents including Neurophone, microwave hearing devices, silent sound. There are many. If this info isn't introduced then I will assume the authors before are schills and Wikipedia is complicit in trying to shape public opinion and prevent the truth of the claims of people being affected by "psychotronics" from being acknowledged. After all, police in USA all have some of these weapons in their arsenal like the sound cannon that is so loud it puts people into shock and their brains 'short-circuit and they drop to the ground. Responses to this are appreciated but don't just respond to the one point that is vulnerable, answer all and look up what I.present. Also Look up Doctor Robert Duncan's book "deciphering the matrix ". Thanks. . Prosperbelong (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a conspiracy theory. See Psychotronics (disambiguation) for articles with the same buzzword. Information about other real things may be included in other wikipedia articles. PLease see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:FRINGE about related wikipedia rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't have explained myself better than the way Prosperbelong (talk) did. By the way, you may be interested in the Electronic harassment article which deals with a long lasting debate over whether it is about a real form of harassment and torture or a mental illness. Staszek Lem (talk)'s attempt to belittle your reasonable comment is part of the cited debate at Electronic harassment. I suggest we put together our minds and resolve into an encyclopediac uncensored solution please. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Psychotronics be merged into Electronic harassment. The content of the Psychotronics article duplicates what is contained in the Electronic harassment article, with only very minor variations. Anything pertinent from here can be relocated there. And the Electronic harassment article is of a reasonable size that the merging of this one will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This seems to be a subset of Electronic harassment, dealing with they hypothetical technology used. It doesn't need its own article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, although later it may be split into two parts: one about real or suspected research into electronic psychoweapons, another is about delusions and conspiracy theories. In any case, the merged article must be clearly split into two such parts. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Agree Jed Stuart (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We have so many reliable sources discussing the topic of "targeted individuals" it may make sense to have Targeted individual be the main article that contains the material describing the existence of people with this specific delusional belief, and Electronic harassment as a redirect to the main article. It could also contain a section about the Psychotronic conspiracy theories that predate the "TI" beliefs, most of which have been subsequently adopted by the "TI" community. Of course this restructure will have to wait until the current Talk page disruption ends. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There are some pros and contras to your proposal. But let us do the "mechanical" merging first and then proceed with the discussion of its rearranging (and renaming) in one single talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the second thought, a good idea is to make a clean start right away, i.e., (1) put real stuff into "Electromagnetic mind control weapons" (or something) article and (2) put conspirology stuff about testing these weapons on people into "Electronic harassment". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely rename it. "Targeted Individuals-TIs(conspiracy theory)" would seem to make sense to me. Even though not all people identifying as TIs have a conspiracy theory belief, to accept the claims of being targeted as possibly true does lead to speculation of such. If you want to end the debating in the Talk page you are going to have to stop saying things like TIs are 'people with this specific delusional belief'. The secondary sources do not come to the conclusion it is a delusion, that is just the opinion of some psychiatrists. Give that a rest please.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that conspiracy theories are not only by mentally ill people. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with renaming to "Targeted individuals" - TIs are targeted not only by psychotronics; there is a wide range of types of purported harassment besides electronic claiimed by TIs. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: on Wikipedia, we give due weight to what the relevant mainstream experts in science, medicine and academia have published. We cannot "give that a rest". Like it or not, psychiatry and psychology are considered the most authoritative sources regarding people who hear voices in their heads and say the government is using psychotronic/electronic/microwave torture against them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify my previous comment: AFAIK not only TIs believe in the theory about EM-psycho weapons, just like not only "abductees" believe in aliens. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: after further consideration, I'm OK with Electronic harassment as the main article title and Targeted individual as the redirect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, I agree TIs claim many other forms of targeting. The articles cited do mention many of those, they are not just about EH-psycho weapons. There are very few RS articles about TIs claims, so those we have, particularly "Mind Games", are a start in the direction of a more comprehensive coverage of the claims and the psychiatric response.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, However the Washington Post did not conclude that the psychiatric opinion was correct. They saw the issue as an open question. They are the most reputable source we have it would seem to me. The cited publications in the article that support the delusions view warp the article. One is just a masters thesis, a primary source, and not been peer reviewed in an appropriate respected secondary source. We definitely have different opinions coming up in the RS media. So what is not appropriate in the articles talk page are statements that say claims of electronic harassment are evidence of delusional beliefs. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: I believe you are confusing journalistic style for advocacy. For example, a newspaper article that includes a number of claims by people who say they have seen ghosts or been abducted by aliens isn't necessarily presenting these things as an "open question" or challenging the scientific orthodoxy's opinion about these things. I understand that within the narrative of "TI's" psychiatry is viewed as part of the electronic mind control conspiracy, however on Wikipedia we minimize fringe viewpoints and give primary weight to what reliable sources in the relevant community of experts say. And in this case the relevant expertise resides in mainstream medicine, specifically psychiatry and psychology, who very clearly (and routinely) identify such beliefs as delusional. The paper you refer to was published in Psychopathology (journal), which as you can see, is not a "masters thesis". Wikipedia operates by consensus, which means you have to convince other editors that the changes you want to make are an improvement to the article. By now I think it's clear from your participation on various Talk pages that we are not going to accommodate your desire to have the article give fringe beliefs more credibility or question the judgement of psychiatric and mental health professionals. Of course you can always take up your quest on a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN, or WP:RSN, but as a single purpose account with a history of lobbying for a specific fringe POV along with continued refusal to get the point, you may not find a receptive audience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Well I agree the fact psychiatry is considered part of the conspiracy by TI's.. but science has never proved the claims of existence of ghosts nor aliens since probably ancient times. While on the contrary science proved and deviced remote modulation of the nervous system since probably 70 years ago, when some Mkultra subprojects attempted to. So your comparing doesn't actually... compare. Some rather reliable individuals even suggested systematic remote modulation could, at least technically, be the future a few decades ago.

But this page is an afterpiece anyway: you can't have wikipedia admit there's a chance that some dark intelligence agents are doing what TI's claim. Thus what are we really talking about? It makes literally nonsense inside wikipedia. I don't think it can, not even in the slightest, have published that Governments could be covertly driving people insane via cutting edge technologies, but surely I do believe it is possible, and that those few psychiatrists could in the very end be puppets either knowing or not that actually a lot of people is being blasted and experimented on via electromagnetic and ultrasound waves 24/7 for years as they claim. Another point is that although bizarre and rather unsettling, Ti's claims are supported by history of recent, publicly acknowledged gross governments misconducts such as Soviet Gulags? Nazi camps? Watergate?, Mkultra itself?, the latest enhanced interrogation techniques? God save the Queen. 82.59.57.194 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge Better if the information is on the main article. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)