Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Delusions of delusions?

I agree a crime of electronic harassment has not been established yet, despite considerable efforts to do so from many people who believe they are being assaulted by EM weapons. However, it seems to me that the view that the article should be not about a crime but about delusional beliefs is not soundly based. Why allow the opinion of one psychiatrist to dictate such a notion? Or even the opinion of the entire psychiatric establishment. Sure they may have done scientific research that gives evidence of the different brain states of people with obvious delusions. But there seems no connection to scientific studies showing that people claiming to be subject to electronic harassment also have those brain states. Electronic weapons are a reality that can be proven. For most citizens it would be almost impossible to determine what sort of weapon might have been fired and from where. Thus it would be difficult to prove one way or another - delusion or weapon. To define the topic as a delusional belief is just an opinion. It might even be a deluded opinion. 'Electronic Harassment' is a relatively new term and there seems to be a mainstream belief in the delusion view but also a strong alternative belief in the covert harassment view. This topic needs to make way for both views stated separately rather than fought over if it is to be in line with WP:WikiProject_Alternative_Views (sorry, can't get the linker to link) as far as I can see, but I am just a beginner at understanding how to do things here. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There would have to be reliable sources (per WP:RS) stating the view that it is not a delusion. Looie496 (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I understand it the term 'electronic harassment' was coined by people who think that it is a real thing happening. It has become accepted as such by many people. Surely the definition of that term should correspond with it's usage. Then the two differing opinions should be described clearly. At present one side seems to be attempting to hijack the topic and make it heavily weighted towards being on 'delusions of electronic harassment' which subject seems to have no articles on it at all, just a couple of psychiatrist's opinions. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Any material in a Wikipedia article needs to be supported by reputable published sources. What are the sources to support the changes you would like to make? Looie496 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The main point I am attempting to make is that this topic is now heavily weighted towards the delusions view of the claim that there is real electronic harassment occurring. That is not to say that there might not be people who are deluded that they are being attacked such. There seem to be no reputable published sources for that view though, just two psychiatrist's opinions. I will not be attempting to be a writer/editor in Wikipedia, I don't have the time available for that. However, I will throw in here any sources I come across that might help get a more balanced and neutral statement in this controversial topic. For one thing there is no mention of the person who supposedly coined the phrase in the eighties Roger Tolces, and what he meant by it. Also, an early instance of what was claimed to be electronic harassment at the time should get a mention; that of the Greenham common peace women. I can't find a link to the original article in The Guardian but the article is saved at:mindjustice.org Another indication of the relative weight of the two views on this could be the Google search results "electronic harassment" = 197,000 and "delusions of electronic harassment" = 1 , a court case that was dismissed.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this page? "Mindjustice.org" is hardly a reliable source given its fringe conspiracy focus. While newspapers have reported claims by people who think they were being harassed by electronic waves, such claims have not been given any credibility in reliable independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no "electronic zapping" article at Gareth Parry profile of Guardian. The only copies seem to come from weirdo/suffered sources. You may want to send Parry an inquiry. But again, if this is a big AmMil conspiracy, Parry's brain has already done clean of this stuff, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I was assuming that The Guardian was the original source. As you say the article is not there on the Gareth profile page. I will investigate why that is. The article does seem genuine to me as it is balanced and not conspiracy theory or wild claims. First though I will see if I can't find a more recent reliable source article on what happened there.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wired.com has several articles covering this topic, they're also currently hosting the FOIA request document "Bio-Effects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons". If Drucker's opinion from a TV news piece is credible enough for such prominent inclusion I think DOD documents concerning the same at least deserve mentioning. 126.65.183.232 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What edit are you suggesting, keeping in mind that Wikipedia may not contain original synthesis? Kolbasz (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Article Structure

I have read through all the edits for the last nearly three years. It has been a chaotic process with lots of sabotage/protest editing. The result seems an incoherent article, as well as the protected status. I think we need to talk about it's overall structure. Both views on this are not very well established. There isn't an established psychiatric view based on science, as far as I can see. It is just the opinion of psychiatrists. That is important to have in the article. On the other hand, the claims of covert targeting by electronic means are largely unproven and also on shaky foundations, yet there are many people making such claims. So why not have two sections "Psychiatric Opinion" and "Claims of electronic harassment" and develop each view separately. With it all mixed up the way it is it makes little sense. Perhaps the psychiatric opinion would be best second as that is how most allegations of electronic harassment go down at present.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Electronic harassment is about transhumanism: it's about evolution and mass control, which translate into the concept of surviving. It's neither right nor wrong, it's just the way it is. The claims of electronic harassment come from people who falled/failed on its track. But it's too much of a big thing to argue about it, thus the mainstream view (the only valuable to wikipedia) revolves around safely ending the discussion ascribing mental illnesses. Non-mainstream, views are split between claiming harassment, abusing those who claim, and unalignment. Everyone is important, none is indispensable.Nobody Too (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the article would be worsened by separating the fringe claims from the mainstream viewpoint, treating the topic as if the two viewpoints were equally valid. See WP:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream viewpoint is clear: "whatever this is, it must be mental illnesses", thus the article reflects such incoherency, and it can't get better unless new sources are brought to light. I guess the most appropriate thing would be to just add a template from this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes Nobody Too (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page this one could be added for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Controversial-issues while I would leave the article the way it is.Nobody Too (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and, by policy, gives the most weight to mainstream views. Disputes or controversy needs to be policy or evidence based. You can't just add a "disputed" or "controversial" template solely on the basis that you personally disagree with the content of an article. Do you have some reliable sources that disagree with the mainstream view that we are unaware of, or haven't considered? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Other editors have disagreed in the past, and the basic objection is that it doesn't reflect the mainstream viewpoint, not that it's false. Thus all that can be done is advise it's a controversial subject.Nobody Too (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The wicked part with this matter is that electronic harassment is about driving someone insane. Thus it makes very little sense to sustain the psychiatrists' viewpoint. However, the sources at our disposal are overall clear in letting them be the authoritative side. It can't be anything other than a controversial article until new sources are brought to light.Nobody Too (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

If you (or other editors) object that the article 'doesn't reflect the mainstream viewpoint', then you need to provide reliable sources that show it. You can't just personally conclude that its controversial and new sources are needed. Also, I'm not aware of any controversy within psychiatry or among mental health professionals regarding electronic harassment that would warrant the inclusion of a "controversial subject" template on the article Talk page. Lastly, wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, which means the WP:BURDEN is on you to cite reliable sources and solicit agreement with other editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What is being objected is not that it doesn't reflect the mainstream viewpoint, but that it's "loose". Basically it looks as the past editors advising corrections were not addressed coherently, thus the talk page probably needs that template. However, the subject is quite incoherent on itself in my opinion, and the reason is it's binded to transhumanism which is such a twisted gound. I'm not aware of any controversy within psychiatry on this subject either, yet other authoritative figures showed up taking the side of those who claim.Nobody Too (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we'll need sources, and there really is no controversy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(All of the comments to this topic I started only just now appeared in my account.) It seems to me that there is definitely a controversy. The reason the issue has gone up in the mainstream media is that there are so many people making the claim. It is not going up because psychiatrists are claiming some sort of mass delusion. They have just been asked for a comment to give balance to the article. They have just given an off the cuff response without any studies to back that up as yet it would seem. That does not seem to justify calling it a 'mainstream' view. Some people in the military who know about electronic weapons might say something else if asked. The psychiatric response is so at variance with the harassment claims that surely that makes it controversial. All we should do is describe the two views as clearly as possible as it is too early in this new controversy to ascribe more weight to either.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. That means we give weight to the scholarly or scientific view, not the popular view. And yes, there have been studies. Mental health professionals even have a formal term for such delusions: "mind control experiences" [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a "secretive" topic. Nobody will ever be able to build any consesus towards any viewpoint shift. Just look at its hystory: it starts popular and year after year it gets mainstream. Transhumanism and bioethics are government's property, just like terrorism, war, drugs and so on. This is why terroristic acts are committed by muslims, the western world only goes to war with peaceful intentions, and drugs are imported from south america. Wikipedia is and shall remain mainstream.Nobody Too (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, on a rather off-topic side, fear is the currency on which government is built, thus it needs to be covered. That's why they say you need to have your back covered otherwise you can be kicked in the ass. It's all based on history, and history is based on stronger people eating the weaker. At most, the talk page could welcome that template.. but it's useless.Nobody Too (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is separating the two views. I can see how it could be done easily without any change to the content. The popular view has a large following and can be described as such whether you think it a mass delusion or not. If it is a mass delusion it should be regarded as a worry by psychiatrists, which they don't seem to be doing. Unfortunately most if not all of the documents that their views are based on are not available without paying lots of money.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the links to the psychiatric studies in. It would seem to make sense to have those studies cited in this article, rather than just vaguely referred to in the cited articles. Otherwise it is not verifiable.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how you would change the structure without shifting some weight to the claims (maybe you should write a draft). Matter of fact is the mainstream view (the only valuable to wikipedia) is produced according to the government, thus giving weight to the claims I believe is impracticable (although it would be reasonable).Nobody Too (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I would attempt to give the views roughly equal weight, which seems how the article is at present. I will have a go at a draft.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The following user accounts have been confirmed as sockpuppets and suspended:

• Nobody Too (talk · contribs)
• WalterDariusHolmes (talk · contribs)
• JuanFexi73 (talk · contribs)

Regarding attempts to "give the views roughly equal weight", Wikipedia doesn't give equal validity to views of a tiny fringe minority and the scientific mainstream. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am are not talking about a 'tiny fringe minority'. But perhaps there is a little confusion as to what is meant by 'electronic harassment'. Roger Tolces is often referred to as the person who coined the phrase. I have been looking into that and it seems to be the case on what I have found so far. So we should be looking at what he meant by it, and that is: 'If someone uses any electronic device to aid them in invading your person or property for the purpose of gathering information illegally, or for the purpose of causing harm, this is Electronic Harassment.' He lists some of the forms of electronic harassment at: http://bugsweeps.com/info/electronic_harassment.html He regularly is interviewed on Coast to Coast AM http://www.coasttocoastam.com/search/?query=roger+tolces&search.x=0&search.y=0 so he has a large audience who have been educated by him on the subject. So to that audience and quite a few others the definition is widely inclusive.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

They are a minority, clearly a very small minority, and the consensus of reliable independent sources is that they are "differently rational". We will not be giving equal weight to this viewpoint, for the reasons explained above. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The main reason for the objection to equal weight would seem to be along the lines of Wikipedia being mainstream and therefore the expert view is to be dominant, or some would seem to be saying the only view. However that presumes that it is an issue of mental health rather than harassment. It seems to me that if a person says "my neighbor is zapping me with an electronic weapon" that could be 1. a delusion 2. an assault 3. a lie or some combination of two or even all. You can't rationally say that it is always a delusion when there are other experts who will say otherwise. The belief here seems to be mainly that it can not be harassment or assault or even murder, which belief can not be sustained even if psychiatrists have not studied electronic weapons.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We go by sources. There are no experts who believe it real. There are conspiracy theorists, but that is another matter. Please read WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read that already. Do you think that Wikipedia would consider that Roger Tolces the person who coined the phrase and has worked for many years professionally assisting people in countering electronic harassment not to be an expert?Jed Stuart (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, we require reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as described in WP:RS and WP:FRIND. The far-out WP:FRINGE nonsense that Tolces is peddling and the venues he is peddling it in [2] excludes him from being a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We have been getting off the topic I started. I have done a draft of what I would like to do to the structure of the article in my Sandbox: structure suggestion I don't like the content, as Psychotronics is only one of the forms of electronic harassment that are being claimed and is not even established in its definition it seems from the main article on that. But for now I think the article would work much better with the two views separated, regardless of the weight to be attached to the views. I am not wanting to promote any conspiracy theory whatsoever, just to describe what people mean by the term.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed it. If you replace the article with that content, it will be reverted. You are giving excessive weight to fringe views. It's time for you to start accepting the comments of other more experienced editors here. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You are not paying very close attention then, because I only re-arranged the content. I have added nothing. It is only a suggestion for a start to a more clear article. At present there is no description of the claims at all, which can all be done from the accepted articles cited. I would get rid of the psychotronics section completely which would leave only the Delusions view. It is only a suggestion. I can leave it if there are none here who see the sense of it. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You re-arranged the content in order to serve an obvious POV. Unlike you, I have been here for over ten years and have experience of a lot of topics. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that I understand NPOV. What is said at WP:CONTROVERSY seems relevant here: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views." I don't think the article does describe the views of - the person who started the article, the person who coined the phrase, and the many people who have come here attempting to contribute to the article, all of whom believe that there is a form of harassment called electronic. What I was attempting with the re-arrange was to first set up a space where that description could be worked on. The Psychotronics section does have one of the claims, but it is characterized as 'conspiracy' which some do believe in but not all who believe in the reality of electronic harassment. It needs a lot more work. So what I was attempting was: First, describe the claims as clearly as possible, from the reliable sources cited and then give the Psychiatric opinion and any other opinions there might be. That would only seem logical given the way it started. At present the definition of the issue is nearly all the Delusions view and Conspiracy theory accusation. If you want to create an article based on that call it "Delusions of Electronic Harassment'. It is so heavily weighted that way that it does the opposite. It seems to me that many people would think "this does not get to the truth of what people mean by 'electronic harassment'. It looks like a cover-up". I think we can do better. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, many of the mainstream sources use that formula. First they describe the claims and then give the psychiatric opinion, which often has far less space, but seems to me to be given about equal weight, more often than not. That is why I suggested do similar.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I see your problem: you consider this to be controversial. It's not. There's no credible evidence that purported "electronic harassment" is anything other than mental illness. This is not in the least bit controversial other than to the small number of people who suffer the paranoid delusion that they are being harassed electronically. Some of us are old enough to have encountered Mike Corley. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There's neither clear evidence that it is a mental illness, expecially considering such harassment is about faking them. What is described in the article is the psychiatric view, not the mainstream one. And just because the claims identify the perpetrator as their governments doesn't mean wikipedia should push the psychiatric view. Or does it? I think wikipedia should expose every door in such an unclear and scary (sources mention torture) controversy, rather than switch off the light. In the end, it's not that giving some due weight to the claims makes them credible. Edit: and by the way, the only member of government mentioned gave them credibility. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of occam's razor? There is no plausible mechanism by which this might work and no empirical evidence to support the idea of its inclusion. I suspect that eventually we might merge it to electromagnetic hypersensitivity, since in both cases the purported cause is not the actual cause and incidence tends to increase with publicity about the purported condition and is reinforced by online communities. We know that happens with other fake disorders as well, such as morgellons. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, I think you have identified the problem correctly. It is a question of whether there is a controversial issues here. However, I don't think that it is my problem. It is a problem with the article, as many here think there is reason to regard it as controversial. How do we go about resolving that? I will re-read the Mind Games article as it is one that is often regarded as a good take on the subject. From memory it created the impression that the writer thinks there is a controversy. We might need other opinions on the controversy or not issue, or a mediator. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that in the above talk page section, one comment could be read as if WP:MAINSTREAM is cited as policy, but it's not policy. It's an essay and essays are not policy. It's cited as such by LuckyLouie with the text Bear in mind that wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and, by policy, gives the most weight to mainstream views which would be an incorrect statement encouraged by an essay that is not a policy. That said, i'm not in support of presenting the subject of this article as a real thing, but to use the sources accordingly, without having to resort to the false dichotomy of "fringe" versus "mainstream", as i'm sure this can be sorted in an encyclopedic fashion without using that trope. SageRad (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE is policy though, and mandates that "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view". WP:MAINSTREAM is basically just a short summary of WP:DUE and the WP:FRINGE guideline. Kolbasz (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, of course. Just clarifying. SageRad (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"fringe" verses "psychiatric" would seem to be more appropriate. The mainstream reliable sources would not seem to be fully supporting "psychiatric" as the majority view.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

65.254.29.2 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Please speak about how through cyberbullying, police are understanding the concept of gang stalking and the reported use of military grade weapons in the hand of local law enforcement through the militarization of police forces. And why does wikipedia seem to be advocating mental illness as a cause for reports of directed energy weapons, I thought you were supposed to be NEUTRAL?? Im saving a copy for my records.

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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Roger Tolces coined the term?

I have been investigating the popular belief that Roger Tolces coined the term "electronic harassment", and started a discussion at WP:RSN ["electronic harassment" term/take_2]Jed Stuart (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of rewrite

"thus I'm not going to uselessly repeat every single peace of information"

In other words, you 100% rewrote the article; somebody reverted you, because some people think you provided undue credibility to the statement that govt really "targets" individuals electronically. Now, are you ready to discuss what is wrong with your version and what is uncontroversial in your version, so that we can proceed with a compromise solution?

If yes, then please keep in mind that each your new statement in the article must be discussed separately. Therefore somebody has to "repeat every single peace of information" separately, to avoid chaos in the discussion. Now; are you ready to calm down and discuss your specific pieces of article text, rather than throwing generalities around? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep on asking the evidence to show that electronic harrassment via electromagnetic waves is a fact. On the other hand , I believe the argument is about whether it is framed as a mental illness (so it should be mostly given weight to the fact the victims are severely mentally disturbed), as an unknown phenomena (so it should be given weight to all the perspectives: psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions and violent incidents - just how I edited few days ago), or a conspiracy theory in its pejorative sense (so the lunatic tin foil hattery along with the mental health version would be the focus). This is all that the argument is about in my opinion: it's the article structure . By the way, I never stated that govt really "targets" individuals electronically, all I did was to report the sources. Where did you get that from then? I still think we need WP:RfC, but if you are willing to discuss properly I'm open to partecipate. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What you are proposing is exactly what is described in WP:ADVOCACY. While that page is not a policy, the following page is. WP:DUE explains that we must not give more weight to fringe views than is necessary to inform the reader that they exist (and in the case of notable fringe views, what those views are). In WP:RS (another policy page), it is explained that we cannot include views for which there are no reliable sources, unless those views are very basic and very common, so that no-one is likely to challenge them*. So your statement that we should have an article which gives the same weight to the view that this is actually happening as it does to the view that this is a conspiracy theory or the symptom of mental illness flies in the face of WP policy. We cannot and will not do that.

*To give you an idea of how basic and common a view must be to be included without reliable sources, check out Modern flat Earth societies. The claim that the earth is not flat is not basic and common as to be stated without being reliably sourced. Also within the article Earth, in the very first sentence, the claim that "The World" is often used to describe the planet Earth requires a reliable source. So any unsourced claims must be so extraordinarily basic and commonly believed as to be completely untouchable. You could probably get away with claiming that they sky is blue, but I would advise you to source that, just in case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We describe it as reliable independent sources describe it. You have failed to persuade, at a pretty spectacular level. Your options at this point are (a) drop the WP:STICK; (b) bring much better sources; (c) leave, a decision in which you may have no choice. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, we are drowning in generalities. Please stop. Such discussions are unmanageable. Please follow the itemized discussions, as exemplified in subsections below Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Unknown Phenomena?

AFAUI, Beautifulpeoplelikeyou suggest that the article must cover three descriptions of EH:

• Mental Illness (MI)
• Conspiracy Theory (CTh)
• Unknown Phenomena (UPh)

Further, AFAIU, there is no objections for MI and CTh. Now, please provide the references that some Reliable Sources describe EH as UPh (notice, I am not asking for RS which describe opinions of some poor deluded people which claim unknown phenomena). Also, if a phenomenon is "unknown" simply because serious people did not bother to investigate, we don't bother either. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted this. I was referring (and I believe Jed Stuart as well) to the niche connotation of the topic and it's relative lack of information, thus to the lack of a prominent satisfactory description. What we mean is that all perspectives deserve to be depicted unbiased. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No I did not misint'ed this. This is your text (highlight mine): " I believe the argument is about whether it is framed as a mental illness (so it should be mostly given weight to the fact the victims are severely mentally disturbed), as an unknown phenomena (so it should be given weight to all the perspectives: psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions and violent incidents - just how I edited few days ago), or a conspiracy theory". Please explain how "niche connotation of the topic" matches your "an unknown phenomena" or please cite your other text I probably missed. I understand that Jed requested more inquest into this, but since he failed, this "niche" is so minuscule, in opinion of other legislators, as to be undue here. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get the last portion of your reply.. the one about Jed, the niche connotation being minuscule, and the one about legislators (what legislators are you talking about??)

The way we intended "unknown phenomena" is just the most handy to pithily describe what EH is about, whether an alleged criminal activity or a mental illness, and to convey the enigma about how much weight should be given to each of the two views? There lays the usage of the word "unknown".

May I recall this article is in the middle of such debate since a very long time? It's not me the first one to disagree with the proposed content of the article (recently someone suggested it is a cover-up, others suggested it's about ignorance, others suspect it's fun to follow the good old fashionable saying "You're crazy. You need a psychiatrist!").

May I recall the fact that more than once the sources cite the ineffectiveness of the anti-psychotic drugs prescribed to the TIs? Doesn't that validate at some degree the word "unknown".. at least doesn't it validate doubtfulness? Remember doubtfulness is the first sign of intelligence.

Is it clearer now what I meant with "unknown phenomena" (if you prefer we can call it ambiguous or obscure phenomena)? I really hope so. What is certain is that, at least in my humble opinion, reliable sources don't show any clear bias. Again, there is no weight to be given to any one perspective, thus I suggest (again) we give equal weight to all the perspectives: psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, and violent incidents. Hit me up with any concern you might display. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"ineffectiveness of the anti-psychotic drugs" - they are equally (in)effective everywhere, regardless "electronic harassment". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, and violent incidents." - OK with me (in due proportion), but no "unknown phenomena", please, without references to the usage of this (or similar) term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Legislative intervention

from Beautifulpeoplelikeyou's version:

Kucinich presented a bill to ban "energetic weapons" form mind/mood control. It is cited from the serious source which specifically discusses the subject of our article, therefore IMO it is OK for inclusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I defenately agree. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, Jim Guest is good to go, but I don't think that extensive quoting of him (copied from a newspaper) is a good idea: he appears to be a minuscule minority and hardly an expert on the topic (at least not described as such). Also, we don't have sources which explain why his call for investigation was not acquiesced, i.e., its notability (due weight") is low. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim Guest is a 75 year old politician, and although not part of the congress I believe his statements are worth mentioned, they have weight (otherwise he wouldn't even be on the source). Why label him as a "minuscle minority"? Just because he stated what psychology-diagnoses-advocates don't want to hear? Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW: re: "By the way, I never stated that govt really "targets" individuals electronically, all I did was to report the sources. Where did you get that from then? ":

I did not write the way you stated it. I wrote: "some people think you provided undue credibility to the statement that". In particular, the tone of this section contributes to this undue credibility, in particular, the phrase "Government representatives showed some support to the victims". - who says so? Especially you omitted an important piece of context: "the bill was widely derided by bloggers and columnists and quickly dropped." Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "somebody reverted you, because some people think you provided undue credibility to the statement that govt really "targets" individuals electronically", which means you implied I stated that govt really "targets" individuals electronically, didn't you? About "the tone of this section"... all I can say is that I think it's simply a matter of cognitive bias: to me It looks as I wrote a detached paragraph depicting legislative interest into the EH, while some others think otherwise. About omitting that part I can say I did not do it intentionally, and in my defense I care to say that in any case I did not omit that it was later dropped (thus I admitted it was unsuccessfull). Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No it does not imply whatever you think is does. "provided undue credibility to the statement" is not the same as "stated". I am willing to agree that it was probably not your intention, but that's how "cognitive bias" would make some people read it: "Gee, even govt dudes are on it, so there must be sompthn", while in fact only two gullible officials took the bait and were laughed at. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh then I'm sorry. You didn't imply I stated government is electronically harassing people, you just implied my article is biased and at the same time I'm being demanded to prove it is. Shouldn't it be the other way? I mean.. if you edit something and someone comes to you saying "you are biased", wouldn't you expect that person to address his accusation? Honestly I don't understand why it is biased? I think it does properly reflect the references. So, would you care to show me where exactly lays my bias towards the statement that government is electronically harassing people?

Seriously, references speak for themselves and I certainly did not write them (I wish I was a journalist but I'm not). They are clear in stating there's a chance government may be actually involved in electronically harassing people, thus if you can't swallow this very basic circumstance, you will never be able to avoid accusing me of being biased. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please quote the text from the source which in your opinion states that "there's a chance government may be actually involved in electronically harassing people". I don't see this in your version of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Incidents

Incidents which received significant coverage specifically in context of EH may be listed, but their description must be severely trimmed: their notability is primarily due to their violent nature, rather than due to reasonable additional info for the topic of our article. Just the same, the article ADHD, Paranoia, or Hysteria do not detail various clinical cases. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to slightly disagree on the trimming you advocate: those two incidents clearly are very notable and popular. By no means, their violent connotation is a valid reason to trim/belittle them. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If the incidents are notable on their own, there may be a separate article. But we don't want to overwhelm this one with incidents. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lede

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou version: If anybody finds there anything to improve the current version, please speak up. I have no opinion.

Just one thing:

" often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing empasse." - who says so?

In any case, the article lede must be a summary of the article content', so in this respect the current version is IMO prefrable. If it contains factual errors or dubious phrasing, please indicate. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The "embarassing empasse" I was referring to is that produced by the nature of EH, as cited few lines above, an unknown phenomena lacking a prominent satisfactory description. I believe it's a coherent and honest statement that deserves to be part of the lede. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words, this phrase is your judgement. Since it is nontrivial, is is disallowed in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, we did not establish that "unknown phenomena" are to be covered in our article yet. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That phrase is not my judgement, it is rather the most appropriate phrase I came up with to pithily describe what EH is about, whether an alleged criminal activity or a mental illness, and to convey the enigma about how much weight should be given to each of the two views?

May I recall the fact that more than once the sources cite the ineffectiveness of the anti-psychotic drugs prescribed to the TIs? May I also recall the Martha_Mitchell_effect?

May I recall this article is in the middle of such debate since a very long time? It's not me the first one to disagree with the proposed content of the article (recently someone suggested it is a cover-up, others suggested it's about ignorance, others suspect it's fun to follow the good old fashionable saying "You're crazy. You need a psychiatrist!").

Is it clearer now what I meant with that phrase, and what I mean by "unknown phenomena" (if you prefer we can call it ambiguous or obscure phenomena)? I really hope so. What is certain is that, at least in my humble opinion, reliable sources don't show any clear bias. Again, there is no weight to be given to any one perspective, thus I suggest (again) we give equal weight to all the perspectives: psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, and violent incidents. Hit me up with any concern you might display. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

YOu wrote: "That phrase is not my judgement, it is rather the most appropriate phrase I came up with". Sorry, you contradict yourself. Since you "came up with" it, it is your judgement, unless you support it with a source which makes a similar judgement. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't deny it's a form of judgment, indeed I continued with "..it is rather the.." What I tried to do is avoid easy accusations of WP:POV and WP:FRINGE (the highways used in this talk page to censor current bias criticism). You see, I'm trying with all my good intentions, almost alone and as a starter against a group of seasoned editors, to be communicative and productive assuming good faith, instead we're heading towards useless quibblings. I have no time for quibblings, over the internet nonetheless, not to mention on wikipedia: it's just not my preferred style. Do you? Let's have a tea my friend (or maybe a coffee, a beer?), and accept the simple fact that you are supporting WP:UNDUE. Please if you care, restore a productive mindset to exchange written opinions, and come back later on, I'll be waiting for you open arms. Until then, please refrain from giving your own meaning to my own writings after that meaning I explained clearly (if ever there was the need to). I was just trying to depict the debate between the mental illness and the conspiracy perspective, the best as I could. So, am I liable of being contradictive now? I don't think so. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to which directly supports your description we are discussing ("unknown phenomena"). When wikipedians are in disagreement, the only way to resolve the dispute is to refer to reliable sources, because personal opinions on the subject of wikipedians, seasoned or not, do not matter. For example, which source directly refers to "debate between the mental illness and the conspiracy perspective". IMO there is no debate, because IMO there is no sharp boundary between the two perspectives. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You may not see the debate produced by the two perspectives but there it is, in plain sight, and the inability to see it, which is needed to solve it, denotes a really big problem. I'm not going to provide you with one reference only to support my description, because indeed it is the combined references altogether that support the depiction of EH as an "unknown phenomena" (prefer "obscure phenomena", or maybe "ambiguous phenomena"?).

IMO Electronic harassment can only be described as one of the followings: 1) a mental illness that uses the psychotronics conspiracy to keep it alive, 2) a psychotronics conspiracy created by mentally ill individuals to explain their illness, 3) a psychotronics conspiracy that really turns ordinary citizens into victims of remote psychophysical violence via energy weapons, 4) an unknown/obscure/ambiguous phenomena with no certain description. And I vote for number 4.

Recapping all the observations gathered from the combined consultation of the sources (in no particular order), it looks as Electronic harassment is not a clear topic as the present bias depicts it, and deserves weight on more than just the mental illness perspective (right now it is grossly WP:NOTNEUTRAL):

• The sources don't offer much analysis or opinion, they mainly describe the victims view and the psychiatric view
• It defenately conveys a conspiracy theory ("an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have conspired to cause or to cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful"), the "only" problem is we don't know if it's real or not
• The exotic energy weapons in case are supposed to produce mental illnesses symptoms, yet citations of psychiatrics's and psychologist's diagnoses (even though only via the reading of online mind-control communities posts) are proposed
• The exotic energy weapons in case look science fiction, yet the sources are accurate in citing evidence they have been researched and developed for decades and still are
• Tin foil hats are a cultural joke we all know and laugh about it, yet we get to know that since around the cold war years the microwave auditory effect is a way to transmit clear sound at the speed of light, including speech, from a distance and without a receiver, just as peeling a banana, making sci-fi "human telepathy" topic formally possible - not only that, we come to know that "voice to skull" (abbreviated as "V2K"), is the official military designation for the microwave auditory effect and it is defined obsolete (makes you think: if that designation is obsolete, what came after?), and that so many patents on the line of remote mind-control/nervous system manipulation have been issued during last decades
• On that moment you think it all just revolves around someone having fun beaming sounds and speech at you, you keep reading and get to know the claims vary from manipulation of body parts (including genitalia - so-called sexual attacks) and so on
• After reading of mind-control communities described by mental health professionals as nests of zombies you also get to know that thanks to the internet, people believing the government is beaming voices into their heads and living up with social isolation, "now have discovered hundreds, possibly thousands, of others just like them all over the world. Web sites dedicated to electronic harassment and gang stalking have popped up in India, China, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Russia and elsewhere. Victims begun to host support meetings in major cities, and prompt possible legal strategies for outlawing mind control"
• The alleged victims accuse rogue government agents of being the improbable perpetrators of such cruel actions, yet at the same time the sources cite (as if we didn't already know) that unethical non-consensual experimentation on common citizens was in place since decades ago
• After feeling kindly assured by psychiatrist Alan Drucker that "there's no scientific evidence, there's no objective evidence to show that what they believe to be happening is factually true", you really doubt your senses when you read about up to date news on psychotronic weaponry being the focus of future arms procurement program
• It's very interdicting for example to read that the European Parliament is researching into human behaviour manipulation via directly interacting with the human nervous system for para-politics/crowd control goals since year 2000, and that this is supposed to be achieved via the weaponization of electromagnetic waves (aka Directed-energy weapons)
• These individuals are diagnosed schizophrenic because of voice hearing, yet the sources agree on stating no medication has ever worked to stop the voices
• Thinking there must be something you don't really get if such unlawful acts have being going on for so long without any authority stepping up, you suddenly come to know two politicians actually did take the side of the alleged victims
• The Martha_Mitchell_effect is a well-known issue in the mental health profession that fits perfectly into EH
• Then when you think something like "well this is all pretty weird but fortunately it's all yet a big conjecture", you even get to know violent incidents happened to, or by the hand, of alleged victims of Electronic harassment

Now, in all honesty, do you think this points (they all come from the reliable sources at our disposal) constitute enough references to support the description we are discussing? Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's classic WP:SYNTHESIS, taking items you find relevant and weaving them together to form a "case" that supports or strongly implies a point of view not explicitly stated by any of the sources (I note that much of your list and its imagined nefarious connections can be found on "TI" websites) but Wikipedia editorial policies don't permit this sort of indulgence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh really? What about WP:NOTSYNTH? Do you really wanna take me on a quibbling rollercoaster you lost little soul? If you believe in what you write, if you believe I breached WP:SYNTHESIS policy, what are you waiting for to clearly point out where I did so? I must have read somewhere that one of the preferred ways of seasoned editors to bite newcomers is to naively cite some policy and fly away living an aura of authority. Do you note anything familiar here? Also, I said this already a few sections ago: we are just editors, not cops, if you wanted to be a cop you should have enrolled in into police academy, instead of signing for a wikipedia account. Demonstrate you're much more than what you seem to be after your comment above. C'mon. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr. In any case in wikipedia the lede is a definition of the subject and a brief summary of the article text. We can update it together with the growth of the article. Since we have a merger proposal pending, we can postpone the work on the lede. At this point we can discuss only the improvement of the definition of the article subject. 18:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pandora Project

Recently I quickly added this section. Its last sentence is " these pieces of information fuel the worries of the "TI"s [ref: "Mind Games" article]. IMO the latter may be the true subject of this section, renamed to something like "Arguments of the proponents" (once again, cited from WP:RS, not from "TI"s themselves) and expanded; I did see more of that in WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is circumstantially worth mentioning past clandestine mind-control experiments, but I don't think that section is of great interest, at least not an interest that demands a new section. If it was so, we would be better creating an MKUltra section as well. TIs don't claim to fear the use in history of energy weapons against unwitting people, what they claim is present time harassment and torture of themselves via such exotic weaponry. So, those "pieces of information" you mention are just a ciorollary to their claims. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about all mind control experiments. And I am not suggesting to devote a separate section apiece for each of them. I am talking about those which are actually used as an arguments by "TI"s to convince us and themselves that something's up, i.e, about those which are within the scope of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean now, and I actually support the idea of a section that reports the causes of the TI's worries: maybe we could rename the section into something like "Experimentation, research and declassified documents" mentioning, along with the Pandora project you already included, other important sources of paranoia for TIs that specifically convey publicly recognized unethical government conducts such as the followings (please note that I obtained these just from the Washington Post artcile.. I did not yet go through the other references):

• There are hints of ongoing research: an academic paper written for the Air Force in the mid-1990s mentions the idea of a weapon that would use sound waves to send words into a person's head. The signal can be a 'message from God' that can warn the enemy of impending doom, or encourage the enemy to surrender. In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: using microwaves to send words into someone's head. That work is frequently cited on mind-control Web sites. Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the research laboratory's directed energy directorate, declined to discuss that patent or current or related research in the field, citing the lab's policy not to comment on its microwave work.
• Dennis Bushnell chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center who tagged microwave attacks against the human brain as part of future warfare in a 2001 presentation to the National Defense Industrial Association about 'Future Strategic Issues'. "That work is exceedingly sensitive" and unlikely to be reported in any unclassified documents, he says."
• We could also report that "During the Cold War, the government conducted radiation experiments on scores of unwitting victims, essentially using them as human guinea pigs.", plus the infamous (this is the term used by the sources) Project_MK_Ultra, and its sub projects involving electromagnetic means instead of LSD, plus all the other distinct projects such as Project_MKDELTA, Project_ARTICHOKE, Project_CHATTER, COINTELPRO. This are only the projects that we know about, and just the once belonging to US secret agencies, thus it seems that TI's concerns in terms of unethical government experimentation on non-consensual subjects look more than plausible.
• We could report that the 1980 article "The New Mental Battlefield" (published in the Army journal Military Review), by former Green Beret John B. Alexander, long known for taking interest in exotic weaponry, is often cited by TIs as proof of the existence of mind-control unethical experimentations. Alexander also is intrigued by the possibility of using electronic means to modify behavior. He says: "It's only a matter of time before technology allows that scenario to come true. We're now getting to where we can do that. Where does that fall in the ethics spectrum? That's a really tough question." He continues: "But none of this has anything to do with the TIs. Just because things are secret, people tend to extrapolate. Common sense does not prevail, and even when you point out huge leaps in logic that just cannot be true, they are not dissuaded."
• Concluding, we could report "given the history of [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States America's clandestine research], it's reasonable to assume that if the defense establishment could develop mind-control or long-distance ray weapons, it almost certainly would. And, once developed, the possibility that they might be tested on innocent civilians could not be categorically dismissed."

But what would most likely come out of this section? As usual, psychological-diagnoses-advocates would begin to edit war accusing violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE policies, when all that it was done was quoting excerpts of the reliable sources. It already happened.

References

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice bit of special pleading, blatantly inappropriate on Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and indeed WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not funny. You're attacking me over nothing. I thought wikipedia was way less trivial than that. You either partecipate in the discussion or get out of the way. Let me remind you that one of the lowest forms of disruption is when a seasoned editor naively cites some policy adding nothing else to a fairly outlined discussion by a newcomer, yet looking as they fly away sorrounded by an aura of authority. Get a life. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What JzG means is what have already explained to you several times: all this stuff can go here only if it was discussed elsewhere in the context of this article subject. Otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I have requested enforcement of discretionary sanctions in respect of this article, and user:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou specifically. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Going for a WP:RFC.. what do you think?

It looks as after two days having posted my last replies to what looked like a productive exchange of opinions none has anything left to say. Is it that I silenced my interlocutors, or maybe is it that I don't deserve any attention because I'm purpotedly supporting the view that Electronic harassment is not a certain mental illness?

I would like to understand. Let's be clear about my questioning to you fellow editors: do you believe the article as it stands reflects the references without giving undue weight to the "mental illness" view? In other words: do you believe (as I do) the references depict Electronic harassment as either a conspiracy theory or a mental illness without giving away one of the two? In other words: do you believe (as I do) the references depict it as an unknown/ambiguos phenomena with no overall bias which consequentially deserves to have all its relevant aspects (psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, past experimentation and research, and violent incidents) equally covered?

Judging by the archives and article history it is clear this debate is nothing new, yet since the last attempt to re-write the article came from myself with those edits on the 13th and 14th of this month, which have been promptly reverted, I'm going to use my sandbox to create "my version" (which you can already read a handful of lines above here on this talk page) of what the Electronic harassment article should be (basically copy pasting my reverted edits), in order to hopefully gather productive results. And then, if none in here is able to re-open the discussion giving valid reasons for retaining the article the way it stands, I will have to go for WP:RFC. Any contribution is welcome. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I just created the sandbox article. Feel free to share your opinions and comment. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a great deal worse than the current article. Apart from anything else, you have to read some sentences two or three times to even parse them. The most likely explanation for the lack of reply is that people are tired of explaining why your proposals are not going to fly. Your response to rejection is to keep asking in the hope that the answer will change. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I invite you then to display my mistakes (consider also my first language is not english thus I could submit). About your umpteenth attempt at having my discussion meanly belittled citing some fashionable sectarian policy, trying to get away with it selling the image of raising your own self-esteem while fleeing through a non-existent aura of authority, I can just say I've had enough. You don't impress me. If you are trying to WP:EXHAUST me, you're making it. Still I'm here trying to be constructive over a pile of wikipedian sheeps. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Guy that the sandbox article is a great deal worse than the current article, and would not be acceptable. Much of the language is unintelligible. May I suggest that Bpeople suggest small, incremental changes to the current article here for discussion to see if a consensus can be reached. I would note that much of what Bpeople has suggested so far has little chance of getting into the article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny horse shit (pardon me). I suggest any of you bravely display my mistakes/unintelligible language, granting you possess the capability to do so. I don't see anything wrong with my sandbox article and when it happened I promptly fixed it. Let's keep the flock flowing.. what can I say? I'm getting very used to this denial of critical thinking. This is called stonewalling. I'm waiting here sergeants.. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad grammar and incoherent writing can always be fixed, however this particular sandbox article is so infused with blatant POV pushing as to be unsalvageable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Show the POV, prove it, if it really is so. Otherwise keep eating your clover. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I can start with one fundamental mistake: you have failed to identify any credible reason why a wholesale rewrite is needed, or any substantive problem with the existing version that would justify replacement. Another fundamental problem is that you have to read some sentences two or three times to even work out what they mean. Your draft is markedly worse than the current article and there's nothing to fix anyway, so that's really the end of the discussion. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you expect me to reply to your nonsense? You're lucky, because I'm going to anyway: in the last sections of this talk pages I wrote tons of reasons that justify a rewriting (at least partial, and a bias shift) of the current article. End of the discussion? You're welcome to avoid engaging again in nonsense in this discussion. Please don't stop eating your clover. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not? We've been replying to yours for weeks now. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beautifulpeoplelikeyou: Please understand, we are not going to discuss your version, because it is full of various problems, although it does have parts usable in the "main" version. You were suggested to change the current version incrementally so that each change is to be discussed separately. I even gave you an example above, how to proceed, by creating a bunch of talk subsections. This is the way how articles are worked out in wikipedia. Imagine I write my own article and JzG writes his own article and I am sure LuckyLouie can do the same easily.And we will never agree which version is the best of the best of the best. So, here is my final question to you: Do you agree to work on the article in small steps or not? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There's something I'm missing here: who's the one who stopped discussing those talk subsections you created? Is it me? I really don't think so, in fact I waited for a continuation of those sub-discussions which unfortunately never came and which I'm still waiting for at a certain degree. Thus you really need to step back on that one my friend. If you're not going to discuss my version I don't care more than necessary. What you others should instead get straight is that facing unrelenting denial of critical thinking doesn't impress me, and that I will likely follow course with WP:RfC and/or WP:NPOVN if I have to. End of story. About your final question: yes of course I agree to work in small steps, that's exactly what I'm waiting for while you others are stonewalling altogether. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

" I waited for a continuation" - you don't have to. If there is no objection, You can update the article. But please do so in small parts. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, please explain the metaphor "eating your clover". I failed to google it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks as sheeps eat clover, and I found it fitting to greet those pompous seasoned editors. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling someone pompous is a personal attack. I invite you to read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sheep" is apparently a derogatory term for people "still programmed to believe that they have correct information” by the evil puppet masters. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

As in: "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" Guy (Help!) 15:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)