Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

open question that covert targeting could be happening?

I will have another go at this issue. The basis of my view that the article should be put in terms of it being an open question rather than definitely delusions is mainly the statement in the Mind Games article of the Washington Post. This is the main opinion they gave:

"given the history of 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."

That to me says the claims of TIs could possibly be evidence of something real happening to them. Also, in the article there are a few statements indicating that the people that they were interviewing did not seem crazy. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. That says 'could, possibility, might' and other excellent weasel words. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The basis of my view that the article should be put in terms of it being an open question rather than definitely delusions... As has been explained to you multiple times now: That would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Also, you are cherry picking a quote from the article to represent your view. The author interviews several experts who all dismiss the claims of the TI's. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed, you have cited that same quote from the Washington Post article on these Talk pages twice before here and here. Both times, the reasons why it does not justify giving credibility to the fringe theory have been patiently explained to you. You ask over and over again why we can't treat the topic as "an open question", and over and over again it gets explained to you. You repeatedly ask why the article can't balance psychiatrists opinions with delusional people's opinions, and it is repeatedly explained to you why our policies can't permit that. Your account is 4 years old, and your only interest on Wikipedia is this one topic. Although you have been polite about it, even politely asking the same questions over and over again is a form of WP:DISRUPTION. If it would help dispel your fears that a small group of editors is trying to "gag" you, you could seek a wider variety of uninvolved editors responses to your proposals and questions at NPOV noticeboard, or even The Village pump forum. Please think about this, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that there is any path forward for Jed's proposal. I'm of the opinion that we've reached the point where any further pushing of it should be dealt with at WP:AE. Jed is very civil, but he doesn't seem to get what we're here to do. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"given the history of America's clandestine research, it's reasonable to assume that if little green men ever crashed on Earth, the military would almost certainly hide them. And, once they crashed and hidden, the possibility that they might be brutally vivisected could not be categorically dismissed."

Sounds familiar? sure. Sounds plausible? hell, yes. Shall we spin wikipedia articles about alien invasion? hell no. Every conspiracy theory may be phrased with 2-3 conditionals into a plausible claim. However without a shred of supporting evidence these conditional phrases produce million-to-one chances, ie. highly WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

-Staszek Lem. That is a silly thing to say as the Washington Post would not make such a statement.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed, No true Scotsman would, either. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

- LuckyLouie. I agree that I should shut up if not successful at the 3rd attempt. The way I see it I am attempting to get the article in NPOV. I am not wanting to have it stated as truth to a Fringe theory. Rather just to recognize that there is such a theory and describe it. I would rather call it an Alternative theory as there are so many people now endorsing it. However, fringe will do for now. I also agree that to do what I want would be to give some credibility to the TI view as a possibility, and that can now be done because that is what a very respected publication the Washington Post did with the Mind Games article. I have not just cherry picked something to push my view. I can give many other quotes from that article that support the issue being regarded as an open question. Of course you are attempting to gag me. You all were quite willing to participate in a fake mediation. What sort of sincere moderator would, after only a short time, close the dispute without giving the person who initiated it a chance to have a say? What a farce you people are attempting to make of Wikipedia. Also you have all being saying the same thing over and over also to the many people who want a more NPOV article. I should have asked earlier if there would be a willingness to go to mediation, before I started that process. I did assume their might be, but it seems that there is not. I would be willing to go to the formal mediation process with this. Otherwise, I will attempt to take it up to ANI. Hopefully there we could put both sides of the issue and I would be quite willing to respect their judgment, and hopefully you lot would also.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI is not a venue for dealing with content disputes; it is for behavioral issues. please read WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart the best way to move forward is to offer a concrete proposal for content and sourcing for it. Something like this:

What do you all think about adding the following the following to the "Claims of being Targeted Individuals (TIs)" section:

"Blah blah blah blah. (source)"

something like that. Just talking generally doesn't' get anywhere. Would you please propose content you would like to see added to article based on the WaPo source? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion arose from my attempt to edit the lead of the article which was reverted by LuckyLouie . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=720012443 .I took exception to that statement in the article and attempted to change it to be more NPOV. To state the psychiatric opinion is quite acceptable to me. To then say it again as a matter of fact is not. If there is some ruling that in a controversy Wikipedia will always take the opinion of psychiatrists as the last word then I will desist.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that diff. Yes we can describe the experience but no granting reality in something Wikipedia can do. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, I'm not sure what you mean by "...but no granting reality in something Wikipedia can do." Could you state that another way? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The key thing that people want who say this is real, is for other people to acknowledge that people are actually being harassed. this is what that diff opened up. in my view we can talk about what people concretely experience (the voices, the bodily sensations, seeing people watching them).. those experiences are actual experiences; and we can talk about how they explain that (they are being harassed with esoteric technology) but we need to follow with an explanation that the experiences are hallucinations and the explanations are delusion/paranoia. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That coincides exactly with my perception. (I decreased your indent to one level beyond my question's. I mention it because I'm not sure that you did it accidentally. Revert if needed.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, made one slight change to avoid misinterpretations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

-Jytdog You are stating the issue as TIs experiences are either real or delusional. Sure they want people to accept that they are actually being attacked by covert technology, but that is not something that the article could say as there is not evidence in mainstream sources. However, the Washington Post article and the other two similar articles cited, New Times (2) and KMIR News (5) all give some credibility to the view that there might be something real going on, that it might not be just delusions. All I am attempting to achieve is to get the article to be adopting a more neutral position: not to say it is real or delusional, but that it might real and it might be delusional, that is to say that it is a controversial and open question. There is the mainstream view and the alternative view of TIs and their supporters. We have been going around in circles on this for some time and getting nowhere. Someone who agreed with me at DRN suggested I discuss it at NPOV noticeboard, which I will do. Maybe some of you will come there and discuss it there.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what i am saying. The experience is real. Hallucinations are actual experiences - its all the same neurons and brain circuitry and the memory is the same as hearing an actual voice or actually being burned. The only difference is that their eardrums are not actually reacting to soundwaves and their skin is not actually being damaged. Its a nervous-system-only thing. What is delusion, is the explanation. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the experience is real and the person's explanation of what is causing the experience is either true or false, which can be determined by appropriate investigation. When a psychiatrist gets a person claiming they are being covertly targeted it seems inappropriate in today's world, with lots of high tech surveillance and other toys on the market, to automatically assume that the person is deluded, even though that may often be the case or partly the case. People who claim the burns often have photos of those burns that seem very real. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

yes yes, and people with "Morgellons" often have lesions. How does this improve our article? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It improves the article to accept that when people believe that they are experiencing something real, in the physical world sense, some real impact on their lives such as burns or lesions, or many other unexplainable things that people report is happening to them, not to then write the article in terms that assume all such experiences/effects are delusions. It seems to me that the Washington Post and the other two following similar articles did investigate these claims and did say "might be something being done to them", not definitely "delusions". Jed Stuart (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

We have gone as far as we can go per WP:PSCI which is policy. Wikipedia will not describe conspiracy theories as reality. All of us are sympathetic to people who experience these things but when we turn to edit, we are reality based. Please let this go, Jed. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

To say something might be real is not to say that it is real. It is not to say anything other than there is something unexplained happening. It is not to endorse any theory, conspiracy or otherwise about why or how it is happening. You have been keeping the conversation going also. It could be you who has to let something go! Jed Stuart (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

jed folks here have said no, consistently and over a long period of time. Part of what we all do here is yield to consensus. See WP:BLUDGEON. (and i mean that, please click that and read what is there, and think about what you have been doing on this talk page and the various places you shopped this) You are one of us, and you need to follow community norms. Please let this go. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

quite a few have said otherwise also, and mostly left in frustration at the majority block of editors that don't really want to work this issue through. That is why I said I will take this to NPOV noticeboard for other opinions. So let's just leave it there for the moment? Jed Stuart (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

We have been trying to work with you, and explain things to you, but, you just aren't listening. Please please stop this it is tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: It doesn't matter how many people think you're right. WP policy exists for a reason. None of the arguments you have put forth justify overriding policy. The fact is, such people are delusional, whether you want to admit this or not. That doesn't change that their lives have been affected by it, nor does it mean that they are somehow personally responsible for the way in which their lives were affected. If you continue to push this matter, you will leave us no choice but to drag you to WP:AE and ask that you be topic banned from editing articles dealing with conspiracy theories and fringe science. If we do that, the admins will institute such a ban, given your persistence and refusal to compromise here. None of us want that, but the longer this goes on, the less options you leave us. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jed. You wrote It is not to say anything other than there is something unexplained happening. It is not unexplained. The totality of our expert sources explain the "experience" as delusions. So our article can't be written as if electronic harassment is unexplained. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have started the topic at NPOV noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment" Please convince me there that the NPOV for this article is to adopt the psychiatric opinion as fact.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be convinced. At some point you have to yield to consensus. have to. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#First Monday (journal). The consensus was that First Monday is in general very shaky for meeting sourcing expectations for anything controversial, and that if you read the text of the citation it doesn't actually support what Jed Stuart 87.1.117.202 is trying to use it for. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the First Monday article or attempted to use it in any way.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. That was another editor.[1] I apologize. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Review Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_3, Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4, and Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_5 for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you. Please stop this sea-lioning, it's disruptive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

electronic harassment and mass shootings

The recent addition of the paragraph on mass shootings is certainly part of the picture and appropriately stated and sourced. However, is it responsible to put it in without some balanced assessment of the danger posed by those who claim to be TIs. In my experience most are very keen to not be associated with violence of any kind in response to being targeted. The shooters seem to be what might be called an explosive TI, the techniques of MKUltra and beyond been used to push a person over the edge and lash out almost indiscriminately. Most TIs seem to be in some other sort of program using similar techniques. Even if you think they are delusional it seems irresponsible to make them all seem like very dangerous people. Jed Stuart (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The article neither states nor implies that "all" these deluded people are dangerous. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me their is a lack of balance for certain there. It could be fixed by the following statement that can easily be justified by the cited sources. It should follow the statement about the mass shooters who claimed electronic harassment: "Others claiming covert targeting maintain professional jobs and show no signs of being violent or mentally ill, other than claiming to be subject to covert targeting. (1) (2) Jed Stuart (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add the following to the last paragraph of the Experiences section: "Others claiming covert targeting maintain professional jobs and show no signs of being violent or mentally ill, other than claiming to be subject to covert targeting. (1)(2)" Jed Stuart (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done That is not needed. Alexbrn (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Some New Sources

• These are not new, as such. And they are not sources. For example, quixotic failed Bills are not evidence of a thing being real. Hell, we have actual laws mandating that pgysicians must not be disciplined for using dangeorus treatments for a fake disease, so legislative efforts even if they succeed don't make a thing real. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Then I guess they should probably go unheard. 81.151.196.67 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That tends to be how it goes when people scream at the vegetation. They get ignored. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not by the vegetation, apparently. ;P MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh eh eh eh. 81.151.196.67 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

New developments warrant creation a separate article "targeted individuals"?

1. https://www.fletc.gov/training-program/covert-electronic-surveillance-program states "Students will demonstrate their comprehension of the material and techniques taught in this course through a variety of field exercises with professional role players as targeted individuals".

This program has been approved by the National Technical Investigators Association (NATIA)" thus admitting that LE conducts covert electronic surveillance after a group which THEY call "targeted individuals".

2. It is incorrect to say that TIs are harassed by "the government"; TIs are curretly self-defined as "A Targeted Individual is a person being anonymously harassed by an organized crime group <www.meetup.com/TI-Awareness/>.

3, Although status of "a conspiracy theory" may still be valid for "EH", it is imo clearly not so regarding "Targeted individuals" and the resppective article should be written anew separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorkinY (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The linked material at fletc.gov clearly pertains to conventional Electronic surveillance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not reliable sources - see WP:RS. This article is sufficient for the reliable sources that exist. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also add that the phrase "targeted individuals" can have many different meanings depending on context, from direct mail advertising to warfare to pharmaceuticals. We don't necessarily cover every usage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

some might say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it's integration into web browsers searching for keywords from a computer science standpoint makes it so similar to a thesaurus that the allegation seems strange. an encyclopedia is essentially a dictionary expanded into sophisticated extensive subparts. if you have ever owned encyclopedia britannica, (the adult version) you know what this was like. wikipedia is based upon an encyclopedia. from an epistemoligical standpoint, yes, wiki really kind of is a dictionary as much as any encyclopedia is, at least in terms of function if not form. and the whole strength of both wikipedia and of encyclopedias and the wiki movement is the extensiveness and elaborateness of the entries that dictionaries lack. So in conclusion, covering every usage might be impossible, and yes contexts matter, but as a specific [covert warfare] term, targeted individual has a specific meaning and even a culture of alleged victims.

On a different note, some people forget that even the entire internet is a descendent from ARPANET, of DARPANET, of DARPA. You can't get away from the reality of how warfare affects so many lives in unexpected ways. The irony is bonecrushing. 50.81.98.170 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

some might say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it's integration into web browsers searching for keywords from a computer science standpoint makes it so similar to a thesaurus that the allegation seems strange. Third party software using wikipedia in a way it wasn't intended to be used means we should cater to their usage? Well, I use the internet to look at porn, so WP (since it's on the internet) should be full of porn, by that logic. I use WP mostly as a way to find reliable sources for research, so WP should also just consist of a complete-as-possible list of reliable sources, instead of this pesky encyclopedic text and images.

And more porn. Porn on every page! Yes, I'm aware that commons is full of porn already. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So in conclusion, covering every usage might be impossible, and yes contexts matter, but as a specific [covert warfare] term, targeted individual has a specific meaning and even a culture of alleged victims Yes, our article presently covers that meaning. So what's the problem? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Tone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I read, "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis,[3] the same sources from which arise religious delusions, accounts of alien abductions, and beliefs in visitations from dead relatives." This immediately caused me to think of the article, as one with a debunking agenda, rather than an article that was neutral and informative. I took the trouble to read reference [3], to see if it supported the assertion for which it was cited. I don't consider that it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Allman (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Gee, I just read it too and I think it does support the text in the article. As far as 'debunking' and 'not neutral' I invite you to read up on what WP:NPOV says and maybe check out WP:FRINGE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The ref didn't explicitly support the exact claim made, so I added another ref that does. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree that the tone is entirely dismissive of the alleged experiences of large amounts of people. It completely disregards real US military patents and other informations about things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States which are significantly cited. It also disregards those physics of the human body which are not described by alleged victims, but which are documented by biophysics infos. It also disregards the possible logic premise that victims of psychological warfare are so heavily and insidiously harmed that they are not able to subsequently properly describe the complete and true nature of the attack. This implies the possibility of biological, psychochemical, or non-lethal weaponry, all of which have articles on wiki with good citing. Let's not forget that people used to be persecuted for claiming that the earth was round. The dismissive tone was just as hostile. If a person doesn't know enough about the biological tolerances to various forms of electromagnetic energy and or ultrasonic or infrasonic or kinetic energy or of toxins or of heat or pressure or cold or vibrations, then they are not qualified to simply call those who might have been brain damaged by such things psychotic and delusional or merely hallucinating. Also, it's worth noting that many of the known neurological and endocrinological adverse effects of neuroleptics match the criteria of the now declassified MKULTRA purposes (for example memory loss, alogia, anhedonia, and lots of endocrinological comorbid confusions which could be considered tools for controlled malingering). It's hard to explain to those who have not read any of these esoteric topics. The average skeptic probably has not read a lot about biological weapons and psychological weapons and declassified human rights abuses or non-lethal weaponry. Since so much of weaponry and the spycraft of unconventional warfare is inherently intertwined with obscurity and obfuscation and secrecy and frequent denial of facts, it's highly improbable for most people to be capable of logical and detailed and non-faulty discussion about these things. And weapons inherently designed to disrupt cognitive thinking would possibly have the usage hallmark of being difficult to describe as well as diagnose, just like poisons. But warlike spycraft exists and people are hurt and killed and this is barely understood by the masses, and yet it is understood. The skeptics need to finally connect the dots between spycraft, unconventional warfare, declassified CIA cryptonym, and the brutal history of unethical medical and military experientation. Of course it's shrouded in deep secrets. And if the main people talkingn about it have been brain damaged by it, that would actually make some logical sense from an etiological standpoint. But we can't trust psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry anymore than pigs can trust the pork industry for a compassionate logical response (even though most people know pigs are scientifically proven to be smarter than dogs, and most americans would send anybody who ate a dog to jail). I know it's hard to talk about this stuff without being somewhat sloppy, but we need to at least use the words and terms available to us. Radio waves exist. "Active Denial System" was declassified and is written about. We know that people can be harmed by the invisible. It's not all about hallucinations or even about using unusual forms of transducer technology for communications. Tasers exist, and the same effects as tasers can be induced by electromagnetic weapons. But the main people who know about that stuff are the people who build them and the people who use them and a few poor victims. It's time for people to stop blaming the alleged victims and instead try to detangle the emotions from the evidence. Simply making character attacks against the alleged victims is not logical nor helpful nor educational. If a person doesn't know enough about the biological tolerances to various forms of electromagnetic energy and or ultrasonic or infrasonic or kinetic energy or of toxins or of heat or pressure or cold or vibrations, then they are not qualified to simply call those who might have been brain damaged by such things psychotic and delusional or merely hallucinating. 50.81.98.170 (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We are constrained by Wikipedia's content policies to write from a neutral point of view, using material from reliable sources. In the absence of objective evidence from citable reliable sources, we cannot report electronic harrassment as being an objective physical phenomenon. We can certainly report on the widely reported accounts of people's subjective experiences and beliefs that they are undergoing electronic harassment, which we do. However, we are also obligated to report the beliefs of the medical community that these beliefs are commonly expressed by those with mental illness. Note that this does not eliminate the possibility that electronic harassment might be a real phenomenon; but without evidence, the default position regarding any proposition must be one of skepticism; particularly so when the claim being made is unfalsifiable. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Falsifiability? It's very long. They come positive to radio-frequency scans. Each one of them?! (watch youtube videos such as this and this) However, this is not reported by reliable sources.

None is able to tell how come that is even possible. Falsifiability is a non-argument, especially if we're talking about covert use of covert technologies by governments. Is it not? It could be counter-argued that claims of mental illness lack falsifiability as well, because psychiatry is hardly demonstrable science at a wide degree while the argument is about covert mind-control. Reliable sources must be those which show skepticism towards the claims, or otherwise? That's very arguable, non-neutral. Skepticism.

The tone used is lean on debunking for sure. None is willing to.. you know 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No. We are not going to allow Wikipedia pages to make claims when there is zero evidence supporting those claims. This is not going to change, so you can stop asking. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I mostly cared to state that falsifiability is a non-argument in this case. I know Wikipedia cannot support claims of state terrorism. Neither 1930s-1940s political opposition to Hitler could, I guess. Claims of electronic harassment are falsifiable because there could be no claims.

-Edit- Science stands not above state terrorism, in the sense scientific approaches still need instruments and freedom to pursue goals. Thus while the argument is state terrorism, falsifiability is not a matter of whether the claim is fully supported, but rather about the claim being made. So again, in 1930s-1940s political opposition in Germany could not afford to support the state terrorism claim I believe, as neither nowadays in countries governed through dictatorships. That's obvious. On the same exact line, the electronic harassment claim is not a matter of science in the first place, thus falsifiability is a non-argument. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right that falsifiability is a side-issue here: I raise it only to show some of the problems other people have with believing some of these reports. The crux here is that Wikipedia's core content policies for controversial content -- which this is -- are based on WP:NPOV reporting of verifiable reliable sources. We are not here to perform original research to find out WP:THE TRUTH: there are plenty of other places you can perform and publish your own research, and no-one is stopping you from doing so. If you want to get this stuff into Wikipedia, I suggest you work on bringing it to the attention of reliable sources, as defined by WP:RS, and see if they are willing to publish it. For example, you might want to get mainstream scientists to replicate the RF experiments you cite (preferably under double blind conditions), getting those articles published in reputable scientific journals, and bringing those papers to the attention of mainstream journalists. Note, however, that there's a big difference between a RS saying "people believe X" (which is something we already report extensively in this article), and "X is true". -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not about "X is true". It's the tone being wrong: the article says "X is untrue" when it should rather say "X is improbable". That's the point. About "bringing it to the attention of reliable sources", I never been into that type of work nor believe I'm going to. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The article does not take a stance on whether this sort of electronic harassment is real: it follows that WP:NPOV convention of reporting what others say about the topic, most of which is skeptical. -- The Anome (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Skeptical" differs from "in denial". This article denies clearly that electronic harassment is real. It states the claims are made because of mental problems. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Can you give a quote? -- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well you have the introductory lede stating in the first half that some people believe in such conspiracy theory, and then the second half states they are hallucinating. That's like reading that bananas are bad, by first stating some people eat them and then stating they are bad because they're yellow. It draws a conclusion right there. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the article reports third parties stating in published sources that they believe believers are likely delusional.-- The Anome (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't that strictly. It states it, taking their word as the given true version. It should read something like "Mr Name Surname believes believers are likely delusional" instead. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It does. See the words "According to Sheridan", "Mental health professionals say" (which is then followed by a list of cites so you can see who they are) and " Yale psychiatry professor Ralph Hoffman notes that", (by the say, I'll just change "notes that" to the slightly more NPOV "states that") and "Other experts compare...", again followed by a cite to let you know who they are. -- The Anome (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It lacks that detachment in reporting, belonging to skepticism (doubtfulness). You said reliable sources are skeptical about electronic harassment being real, which means they're doubtful. That's why the tone is wrong.

Many just read the introductory lede. I believe each section should be comprehensively skeptical, particularly the lede section. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that! I've added some words to satisfy the WP:NPOV policy. -- The Anome (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not good enough yet. The whole point with this article is that it's too much about who makes the claims, rather than on what the claims are about. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But they are yellow! -Roxy the dog. bark 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not all bananas are yellow (see picture). However, the point is that since they can be, it doesn't mean electronic harassment is not true, they're not necessarily related. The analogy with bananas is purely editorial. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting to determine the truth or falsity of electronic harassment here: this is beside the point, because as WP:OR we can't put it in the article. Talk pages are intended for discusssions which help to improve the encyclopedia, within the scope of what's possible under Wikipedia's policies. Could you please keep this discussion relevant to improving the content of the article, which is constrained under Wikipedia's content policies? -- The Anome (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. Read above, I just replied to you. It's about the tone and that's what I'm referring to. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "tone" of this article is driven by Wikipedia's core content policies which constrain what can go in articles to only things we can source to verifiable reliable sources, summarized under the WP:NPOV rules. If you want a more positive tone in the article regarding the reality of electronic harassment, you will have to provide WP:RS to support those assertions. -- The Anome (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate the effort to strike a compromise with the OP and still maintain WP core policies. However I don't think putting mental health professionals "beliefs" on the same footing with EH claimants "beliefs" is the right way to do it. The lead now describes the determinations of medical experts as something that is "generally believed" by them, equal in weight with EH claimants "beliefs in visitations from dead relatives" and "belief in an external influence". Can you come up with better descriptor language that is more consistent with WP:GEVAL? Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That looks as the falsifiability argument. Unfortunately science stands not above state terrorism. Medical beliefs are on the same level of the claimants' since the argument is state terrorism. So to speak, if you're in space you can't argue lead weights more than wood. 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Electronic harassment article the first paragraph is factual the second is infactual

Electronic harassment is very real and not a condition fact Masonmanscot (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Facts" need to be backed up by references if they are to be added to Wikipedia articles. See WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Do suggest additions here if you find evidence. Dbfirs 08:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

...and of course they had to go ask the other parent...[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

Microwave and electronic harassment is real. Perpetrators are able to tap into your mind much easier if you have dental implants, which I found out during my ordeal. My neighbors electronically harass and gang stalk me here in south Texas, and even followed me up as far north as Austin, Texas doing the same thing. From the research I have conducted, they modify lasers with a scope or microwaves and illegally harass and torture us. The worst part is, the people that do it don't want you to know and do there best to cover it up. Don't buy into all the bullshit. If you have fillings, it's best to have them removed or you are more susceptible to their microwaves. Just remember that the people doing all this sort of nonsense are criminals and need to be locked up. Many are prominent members of society such as doctors, lawyers, and politicians. If you think you may be going through this same sort of ordeal, don't let anybody convince you otherwise. These people are real. You can measure the microwave field with and RF meter or an oscilloscope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummerfromharlingen (talk • contribs) 02:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No you can't. Nobody has ever detected or measured a microwave field from an alleged harasser with an RF meter or an oscilloscope. All you ever see on an RF meter is the leakage from microwave ovens, the normal signals from nearby wifi routers, and the occasional weather radar. And no, your neighbors are not electronically harassing and stalking you. Also, a semi-protected edit request needs to contain the exact wording of the changes you want to make. not just the kind of soapboxing you posted above. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes protection now in effect

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Electronic harassment conspiracy theory --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A bit of background for those who might not understand what just happened. I went to WP:ANI and requested pending changes protection.[3] See Wikipedia:Pending changes. For the next five years, when unregistered and new users edit this article, the edit will be saved but hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a reviewer. See Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. To become a reviewer, see Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Becoming a reviewer

To those new users who want this article to stop calling electronic harassment a conspiracy theory, who want to add "proof" that government agents transmit or sounds and thoughts into people's heads, etc., please make your suggestions for changing the article here on the article talk page (be sure to provide sources backing up your claims), and if they meet Wikipedia's guidelines, they will be added to the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Having watched this page for quite some time, I doubt pending changes will really reduce the problem here. The edits by the conspiracy theorists won't be slowed down, they just won't show up in the article. We'll still have to revert them constantly though. At least with semi-protection, the pace was cut down significantly. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Or, if you find reverting them to be inconvenient, you can ignore them, knowing that I or someone else will come along and deal with any vandalism. Unlike before, there is zero harm in ignoring the vandalism and letting someone else deal with it -- nobody will see it.

The reason I asked for pending changes is because you can ask for a lengthy semiprotection, but your request will be denied. "An encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is one of our core values, and preventing new or IP editors from editing a page is only allowed for a short period of time. This is a good decision; there are statistics showing that the vast majority of IP edits are beneficial. We just happen to see a lot of vandals because this page attracts vandalism like sugar attracts ants. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Good solution. Could also be applied to Microwave auditory effect and MKULTRA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing enough vandalism on those articles in the last 30 days for a PC protection request, but I have added them to my watchlist and will ask for PC protection if the vandalism gets worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha. I read this thread earlier, and now have an extra user right. let's see. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course. We like giving extra user rights to dogs because dogs are generally have better morals and ethics than humans... :)  --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Esteban Santiago-Ruiz and mind control

User LuckyLouie reverted last addition regarding the Florida airport shooting of January 2017 where subject Esteban Santiago is referred to have had his mind under control by US intelligence services. LuckyLouie asserts there's no connection with electronic harassment but have a read at this other article I justs stumbled on (it mentions mind control): Gunman behind deadly shooting that killed five and injured six at Fort Lauderdale Airport is declared mentally competent to stand trial. Then another one reporting "He goes to the FBI saying that he [was] hearing voices, that the CIA are saying that he needs to join ISIS." Washington Post article. And then this NBC news article reporting "he told me about these things that he [was] hearing voices, seeing people following him" NBC news article.

Based on such criterias, the Uber driver shooting shouldn't be on the article neither, as it appears far from electronic harassment. This airport shooting is very related to electronic harassment. 81.151.195.230 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hearing voices doesn't get you listed in this article. To be listed you have to hear voices and believe that they are being transmitted to you via electronics. Thinking that the voices come from god, satan, dead people, invisible rabbits, etc., isn't good enough. Find a source where Esteban Santiago claims that the voices came from electronics.

Also, stop reading The Daily Mail. They make things up. They do this a lot. See WP:DAILYMAIL for examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That is what he claimed, to be under government mind control and hearing voices. Seea lso these: Miami Herald and The Star. 81.151.195.230 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Just hearing voices or claiming surveillance or mind control by the government isn't the topic of this article. Just claiming something electronic is being used to harass you isn't the topic of this article either. Our reliable sources (correctly) define electronic harassment as the belief that transmitted electromagnetic waves are being utilized to harass a person. So, it may be correct that Uber driver Jason Brian Dalton — who claimed that his body was taken control of after pressing a button on a smartphone app — doesn't align with the topic of this article. I haven't found any coverage in reliable sources that say Dalton believed the phone was transmitting EM radiation in order to control him, or any coverage that compares or connects Dalton's claims with those of "targeted individuals". - LuckyLouie (talk)

Yes that is true Sir. 81.151.195.230 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

False statement ?

"Although there is no evidence that "non-thermal effects of microwaves" exist, rumors of continued classified research fuel the worries of people who believe they are being targeted.[1]"

If we already know that auditory effects can be caused with microwaves from a linked article Microwave_auditory_effect, why is this statement claiming "no evidence" still here? Also I'm 100% sure there are other effects than just auditory but I'm not "crazy". My theory here is that some people have gene shared by some other species which allow them to detect other animals without seeing them. My theory is that detection mechanism is electromagnetic at unknown frequencies.

So it is possible that some devices (or animals, or persons) could cause harmonics that trigger various not well researched responses on those who have some sort of mutation that amplifies or resonates with such radiation. Best way to deal with these "crazies" would be to build a room that is totally shielded from every kind and frequency of radiation, this might cost few millions but if the crazies stop hearing things there then it would prove if they are crazy or if the people not believing the crazies(mainly those "well educated" people thinking all your issues are your own causing - they maybe right but they should study probabilistic distributions more - perhaps 99.999999% people can filter out the stuff but if there's just 5 (or 5000) people that can't filter out things then government should fund them shielded housing if is first proven to stop the voices or whatever) are the "less evolved lifeforms" unable to sense those random EM-things. Obv. it would be annoying and shameful to well educated mental health professionals if the crazies were proven right so that's why government or mental health institutions doesn't fund such research, if the patients gets better, that ends the funding of the educated professional. (see similar incident with Einsteins Nobel prize - the academy didn't want to award the prize for years because he didn't suck up to common beliefs and political agendas at the time ref: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/einstein-nobel-prize/ )

I like your experiment to determine whether or not these people are crazy, but I disagree with you on the government using my money to fund the experiment. Can't you persuade some crazy millionaire to fund it? Perhaps some university could design a nested set of Faraday cages to block out all radiation. It shouldn't cost millions. Meanwhile, I would prefer to retain the consensus of sane scientists. Dbfirs 07:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://fightgangstalking.com/what-is-gang-stalking/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jack Frost (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Health Attacks" on U.S. and Canadian Diplomats in Cuba

The recent "health attacks" on United States and Canadian diplomats in Cuba, however, mirror many of the symptoms reported by victims of electronic harassment.

The U.S. says 24 U.S. government officials and spouses fell ill starting last year in homes and later in some hotels. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Wednesday (December 6th, 2017) he's "convinced these were targeted attacks," but the U.S. doesn't know who's behind them.

The AP first reported in August that U.S. workers reported sounds audible in parts of rooms but inaudible just a few feet away — unlike normal sound, which disperses in all directions. Doctors have now come up with a term for such incidents: “directional acoustic phenomena.” Doctors treating the U.S. embassy victims of suspected attacks in Cuba have discovered brain abnormalities as they search for clues to explain hearing, vision, balance and memory damage.

Loud, mysterious sounds followed by hearing loss and ear-ringing had led investigators to suspect “sonic attacks.” But officials are now carefully avoiding that term. The sounds may have been the byproduct of something else that caused damage, said three U.S. officials briefed on the investigation. They weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly and demanded anonymity. Other theories include an electromagnetic device, chemical weapons or a hitherto unknown disease.

The most frequently reported sound patients heard was a high-pitched chirp or grating metal. Fewer recalled a low-pitched noise, like a hum. Some were asleep and awakened by the sound, even as others sleeping in the same bed or room heard nothing. Vibrations sometimes accompanied the sound. Victims told investigators these felt similar to the rapid flutter of air when windows of a car are partially rolled down. Those worst off knew right away something was affecting their bodies. Some developed visual symptoms within 24 hours, including trouble focusing on a computer screen.

Simplifythecircuit (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

We already have an article about the alleged attacks. —PaleoNeonate – 20:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's some evidence that electromagnetic radiation was the cause of the effects in the sonic attacks (for which it's still not even been shown that they were actually attacks), and that their purpose was to influence the thoughts and emotions of the victims, then the links between those (possibly) real attacks and the (almost certainly) fictitious ones in this article are all coincidental. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You said, “it's still not even been shown that they were actually attacks.”

On August 9th, 2017 US officials reported that US diplomats were “attacked” with a “covert sonic weapon.” On September 23rd, 2017 a senior US official ::told CNN “there were nearly 50 attacks in total.”

On September 29th, Senior State Department officials said U.S. diplomats have been “targeted” for “specific attacks” and the Trump administration shifted to calling the episodes "attacks" rather than "incidents," On October 16th the President re-affirms that US diplomats in Cuba suffered an "attack."

In total, 24 U.S. government officials and spouses" and "at least 5 Canadian families" were attacked with, according to US officials, a "sophisticated device never deployed before, at least against US personnel."

Merriam-Webster defines the word “electronic” as 1. of or relating to electrons, 2. a: of, relating to, or utilizing devices constructed or working by the methods or principles of electronics, b: implemented on or by means of a computer.

But you're saying for harassment to be electronic it has to satisfy two requirements: 1) there has to be "evidence" that the cause of the effects were electromagnetic and 2) the purpose of the attacks have to "influence the thoughts and emotions of the victims." That seems like an extremely narrow definition of the words “electronic” and “harassment," but, even so, on October 13th, 2017 evidence was obtained by the AP of the sounds American diplomats heard and CNN reported in a story about the Cuba attacks that there are functional MRI studies that show "even non-perceivable low frequency sounds can stimulate several parts of the brain involved in emotion, memory and cognition."

When asked about evidence of Cuba’s involvement in the attacks, by Carol Morello of the Washington Post during a December 6th press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson said, “We are convinced these were targeted attacks. We have shared some information with the Cubans, and there are two restrictions I’ve placed on sharing information. One is respect for the privacy of individuals and their medical conditions, and the second is not to provide whoever was orchestrating these attacks with information that’s useful to how effective they were.” This information could also be construed as "evidence" of an attack.

Furthermore, a closer examination of one recording reveals it’s not just a single sound. Roughly 20 or more different frequencies, or pitches, are embedded in it, the AP discovered using a spectrum analyzer, which measures a signal’s frequency and amplitude. “There are about 20 peaks, and they seem to be equally spaced. All these peaks correspond to a different frequency,” said Kausik Sarkar, an acoustics expert and engineering professor at The George Washington University who reviewed the recording with the AP. Therefore, it's logical to assume the “sophisticated device” US officials are referring to that transmitted roughly 20 different equally spaced frequencies at "extreme volumes" during the attacks has to be "electronic." The device was so sophisticated, it was outside the range of audible sound, one US official said.

It’s none of my business whether or not you believe the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces or the Secretary of State when they say US Embassy staff was attacked. The Gulf of Tonkin incident proves not all “attacks” are attacks. But, we are not in a position to censor Wikipedia because of your opinion. I’ve provided information that satisfies your personal definition of “electronic harassment,” even though I believe it should be much broader. Let’s not let our own opinions of Donald Trump or Rex Tillerson censor a Wikipedia page having to do something as important as an attack like this that caused “permanent hearing loss,”“brain abnormalities, hearing, vision, balance and memory damage,” and “changes to the white matter tracts that let different parts of the brain communicate.”

Personally, I think the page should be updated every week with the newest theories as the story unfolds. The most widely reported theories include directed energy weapons,ultrasonic sound, an electromagnetic device, chemicals, sickness microwave radiation, and even “mass hysteria” caused by “diplomatic tension” which I personally find laughable but certainly wouldn’t censor from the page. Simplifythecircuit (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

References

We already have articles about it: Suspected sonic attack on the United States Embassy in Havana, and more generally, Sonic weapon. You're in the wrong place. This article is about delusions of being secretly tortured by government agents using radio frequency technology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Simplifythecircuit: Yes, they have been widely called attacks. But no attacker has been found, no weapon has been found, and the effects aren't fully consistent with the claims of attacks, so no: they've not been shown to have been attacks. They're suspected to be attacks. There's a huge difference between those, one which you need to fully grok before you have any business editing WP. And again: This is not a forum for you to argue in. This page is for discussing improvements to this article, and this article only. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

DARPA's Pandora appears to be real

Obviously it didn't produce a mind control device, but Sharon Weinberger's work appears reputable: The Secret History of Diplomats and Invisible Weapons, Foreign Policy.--Pharos (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Project Pandora study on microwave effects was real [4]. However as we note in our article, the conspiracy theory that it was called "Operation Pandora" (sic) and had something to do with mind control, as originally proposed by columnist Jack Anderson, is not at all real. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

EL's

Re the recent addition of EL links to unwittingvictim.com and a wikihow.com page. Both contain fringe psuedoscientific claims that advanced technology is being used to electronically harass people. They fall under WP:ELNO, sites that "mislead[s] the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". I am aware that EL:NO also mentions misleading material can be allowed "to limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting", however these links are clearly promoting the viewpoint rather than discussing it in an objective way. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, no reason for that stuff at all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, shouldn't be linked. Wikihow also fails WP:ELNO #12. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'll give yall three guesses what I think about that crap. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that it's unsuitable. My thought when seeing "social isolation" was, a pity to not realize the actual reasons, if it's the case. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of derogatory bullying 'tin foil hat' link from 'See also' section

Somebody opened the sock drawer, but it's closed now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the justification for the inclusion of this link in the first place? Just because this article contains controversial content, does not give editors the right to essentially bully anyone visiting this article, by enforcing a link to 'tin foil hat', which is essentially name-calling any readers experiencing exotic harassment that are seeking impartial information. The inclusion is derogatory and unhelpful. 425mike (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Any readers "experiencing exotic harassment" should be aware that these experiences are hallucinations; the result of delusional disorders or psychosis -- the same sources from which arise religious delusions, accounts of alien abductions, and beliefs in visitations from dead relatives. Tin foil hats are not derogatory; they are a popular imaginary protection from equally imaginary electronic harassment. As for bullying, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". -Inigo Montoya Please check your talk page. There is a discretionary sanctions alert and an edit warring warning that you should be aware of. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC) That is quite ignorant for such a dismissive response. Have you never experienced an audio spotlight? Stand within the ultrasonic 'beam' of such a system, and suddenly you are experiencing 'hallucinations' because no one else can hear what you can? When there are notable technologies available, that when aimed at an individual, produce audio within the brain, how can you so readily cast this off as hallucinations caused by mental illness? 425mike (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC) There can exist non-lethal weapons (i.e. crowd management) and experimental equipment (i.e. microwave auditory effect) designed to stimulate the brain, etc. This would mostly be outside of the scope of this article which is about the belief to be targetted, harassed, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 00:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC) The articles you linked show that bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, including ultrasound and microwave, can be used to induce audio in the brain and heat up tissue. The existence of these technologies should be enough to show that someone complaining of harassment from said technologies, perhaps should not be cast off as a 'Tin foil hat' wearer. Shouldn't the very documented existence of these tools be enough to show that these are not always delusions, but a very possible dark reality of these technologies being used as covert weapons against some individuals? 425mike (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC) If reliable sources discuss notable cases that have been demonstrated to really have been attacked using those techniques, then this article, or the above one, could include such well documented examples. —PaleoNeonate – 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Hmm although even then it might be more appropriate at Targeted surveillance, I think. —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC) I, like most electronics engineers, have access to measuring equipment that can measure electromagnetic fields and audio at frequencies and levels that a human cannot detect. Nobody has ever identified any actual signal that could possibly be the cause of claims of electronic harassment. So 425mike is imagining something that my test gear cannot detect. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC) The point of this article, indeed... —PaleoNeonate – 00:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC) An alternative may be to add a sentence or two from a reliable source describing the use of tin foil hat in a belief to block "psychotronic" attacks, then the "see also" link would be redundant (it would be in the sentence). I recommend to read the article and its sources as to the cause of the phenomenon. Wikipedia must use reliable sources rather than fringe ones, therefore the information should be helpful. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC) That would merely be recasting the bullying into a different venue within the article. The entry should be removed completely, since I have not seen any respectable reasons for the inclusion of the 'Tin foil hat' link within 'See also' section in the first place. Clearly you are in favor of keeping the link. What helpful purpose does it serve? 425mike (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC) There is no bullying going on. Please note that we have also been patient to answer here despite the concurrent edit warring. But thank you for opening the discussion as expected, too. —PaleoNeonate – 00:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC) @425mike: It is in no way, shape or form bullying for us to put a link to a well-recognized phenomenon (tin foil hats) in this article. It is exactly this delusion which inspires tin foil hats. This is not an opinion. This is not subject to debate. This is a fact. If you cannot be trusted to accept and use facts in your editing, you do not have any business editing. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with our behavioral and content policies before you presume to pick a fight with editors who have literally thousands of times as much experience editing this project as you. You have already dug yourself into a hole, and if you continue digging, you will find yourself involuntarily removed from this project before too long. I and the other two who have commented here would prefer you not take that route, but we cannot stop you. It is up to you to step back and decide to engage with more civility and less hubris than you have shown thus far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 2 July 2018

This article is electronically harassed

By all the persistent vandalism whenever it's non-protected. —PaleoNeonate – 05:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

So it is not a conspiracy theory after all Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what THEY want you to think. Wheels within wheels. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wake up, sheeple! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)