Talk:Electronic harassment: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:03, 3 June 2016

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

May 2016

-LuckyLouie. I am not making the point that psychiatry is part of the conspiracy, although some may be. My point is they may be ignorant of new forms of harassment that are not taken into account in their mindset. It would not be the first time a scientific discipline has got something wrong. I will attempt to change the article to make it how it seems it should be and see if you are wrong about the judgment that I am attempting to push a fringe point of view. The citation I was referring to is number 4 by Dietrich, that has not been peer reviewed it seems.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jed Stuart, I moved your comment here because you were editing an archived page. New comments belong on the Talk page, thanks. I also reverted your latest edit, in which you removed material from the article that was directly supported by the article's sources. Myself and other editors have attempted to explain relevant Wikipedia editorial policies to you many times on Talk pages, so I'm beginning to think disruption or WP:COMPETENCE applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jed Stuart: If there is a technology so new that no-one's heard of it, then by definition, it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. We don't write The Truth™ here, we write verifiable, accurate content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JedStuart: By the way, you are correct that Dietrich's paper is a Master's thesis, however the informal general opinion of the WP community about the use of Master's thesis as sources is that many Master's programs do have stringent review as a condition of publication, and so a thesis may be cited with the caveat that it should not be the sole source directly supporting the article text. I note there is a guideline that Master's thesis as sources should have "significant scholarly influence", so anyone who objects to including the Dietrich source on those grounds can remove it. (The article text, being supported by other multiple reliable sources, would remain) However IMO, using it in this article is appropriate, since Dietrich's conclusions are not at all novel or controversial (she uses recognized texts such as the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for source material) and are clearly echoed by the other academic sources present in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat: Master thesis is OK as a source of facts reported during the research. However the conclusions of a thesis are not at all automatically due, because a Master is not a recognized expert yet. Therefore I agree that thesis is OK as a footnote to an opinion only as a supplement to more respected sources, because they may contain more factual detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-LuckyLouie, Thankyou for moving my comments to the appropriate place. It seems to me that what you are attempting to do to the article is take the controversy out of it, whereas the Washington Post described it as such. It is ok to state the opinion of psychiatrists but not ok to state their opinion as fact. All I am attempting to do is describe the controversy as it has appeared in that article. You can call that disruption, but it is only disruption of your very hard line on that. There has been enough huffing and puffing in alternative media also for it to be recognized that their is a growing controversy, even though their conclusion cannot be included in Wikipedia. To say "Individuals suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders[5] or other mental illness.." states that TIs are mentally ill as a matter of fact not of opinion. I will take the matter to the conflict resolution process. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jed Stuart: It is ok to state the opinion of psychiatrists but not ok to state their opinion as fact. When psychiatrists agree (as they do in this case) upon something, it becomes a consensus. That is something which WP policy requires us to state as fact. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-LuckyLouie, I have put in a request for dispute resolution at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX and WP:DISRUPTION

The dispute resolution has been just closed, and I'm glad it has, since it was no different than debating with cavemen screaming without consistency. Obviously it was closed in favour of the seasoned wiki-censors controlling this article. The editor who self-assigned to moderate the whole dispute was a giant waste of time, which is why both me and I guess Jed Stuart too, mostly eluded the meaningless rethoric they all kept writing down (too bad I didn't notice just before it got closed, what looks like a sound-minded editor commented reasonably but it was too late... the dispute had already been closed). Now I'm going to copy-paste here my point of view I expressed over there, mostly for the record though, because the situation is clearly against the chance that the changes we are suggesting will be applied (and the reason is we are just too outnumbered). I will soon be posting the link to the Dispute Resolution case also. Here goes the pasting of what I wrote over there (it's very important to read this since it contains key concepts of this debate):

I'm going to be quoting a british psychoanalyst which I'm sure will help frame the whole debate Jed Stuart refers to, specifically the long running caustic denial of the seasoned editors involved. However, firstly I care to say that neither me, nor I believe Jed Stuart and most of the tens of past opposing editors, is trying to negate the simple chance that a lot of people could be delusional about mind control experiences (aka MCEs). We are just suggesting it does look so very reasonable to agree on the fact a lot of real TI's exist, even if often mixed in online communities along with either mentally disturbed individuals and/or exagerrated conspirationists.

Verfiable and reliable sources confirm the following points that come to mind:

1) the existence of technologies able to impact and degrade human health the way it's claimed by TI's Y

2) the infamous historical relation between psychiatry and government (which spans from the very inception of psychiatry, rolling over the well known Soviet dissidents abusively drugged in a coercive fashion, to the extensive involvment of psychiatrists in the MKULTRA program, up to the cruel history of madhouses) proving that psychiatry has been too often deeply clung to social, rather than to medical issues Y

3) Jed Stuart rightfully suggesting that since the Washington Post article seems the most reliable, accurate, comprehensive and neutral source should be given more weight than it is, specifically over the fact it is unaligned, if not aligned towards the chance TI's could be right but they are unable to prove it for evident reasons Y

4) the sources used as the ground on which the bias of the page is built on, refer mostly to diagnoses made via websites - there's no mention of a face-to-face evaluation, no interview, no psychiatric consultation Y

So in conclusion, bias of Electronic harassment is unjustifiably too much against the claims of it. The only.... "justification" I can think of, is a very sad one: the editors acting as "wiki-censors" are doing it in the interest of securing wikipedia's government-alignment bias towards such unsettling, indigestible claims.

Disbelief as a Defence Mechanism
In the face of widespread disbelief about mind-control, it seems worth analysing the basis of the mechanisms employed to maintain disbelief:
i) In the sixties, Soviet dissidents received a significant measure of sympathy and indignant protest from western democracies on account of their treatment, most notedly the abuse of psychiatric methods of torture to which they were subjected. It is noteworthy that we seem to be able to access credulity, express feelings of indignant support when we can identify with victims, who share and support our own value system, and who, in this particular historical case, reinforced our own values, since they were protesting against a political system which also threatened us at that time. Psychologically, it is equally important to observe that support from a safe distance, and the benefits to the psyche of attacking a split-off ‘bad father’, the soviet authorities in this case, presents no threat to one’s internal system; indeed it relieves internal pressures. On the other hand, recognizing and denouncing a similar offence makes very much greater psychic demands of us when it brings us into conflict with our own environment, our own security, our own reality. The defence against disillusion serves to suppress paranoia that our father figure, the president, the prime minister, our governments - might not be what they would like to be seen to be.
ii) The need to deposit destructive envy and bad feelings elsewhere, on account of the inability of the ego to acknowledge ownership of them - reinforces the usefulness of persons or groups, which will serve to contain those, disowned, projected feelings which arouse paranoid anxieties. The concepts of mind-invasion strike at the very heart of paranoid anxiety, causing considerable efforts to dislodge them from the psyche. The unconscious identification of madness with dirt or excrement is an important aspect of anal aggression, triggering projective identification as a defence.
iii) To lay oneself open to believing that a person is undergoing the experience of being invaded mentally and physically by an unseen manipulator requires very great efforts in the self to manage dread.
iv) The defence against the unknown finds expression in the split between theory and practice; between the scientist as innovator and the society who can make the moral decisions about his inventions; between fact and science fiction, the latter of which can present preposterous challenges to the imagination without undue threat, because it serves to reinforce a separation from the real.
v) Identification with the aggressor. Sadistic fantasies, unconscious and conscious, being transferred on to the aggressor and identified with, aid the repression of fear of passivity, or a dread of punishment. This mechanism acts to deny credulity to the victim who represents weakness. This is a common feature of satanic sects.
vi) The liberal humanist tradition which denies the worst destructive capacities of man in the effort to sustain the belief in the great continuity of cultural and scientific tradition; the fear, in one’s own past development, of not being ‘ongoing’, can produce the psychic effect of reversal into the opposite to shield against aggressive feelings. This becomes then the exaggerated celebration of the ‘new’ as the affirmation of human genius which will ultimately be for the good of mankind, and which opposes warning voices about scientific advances as being pessimistic, unenlightened, unprogressive and Luddite. Strict adherence to this liberal position can act as overcompensation for a fear of envious spoiling of good possessions, i.e. cultural and intellectual goods.
vii) Denial by displacement is also employed to ignore the harmful aspects of technology. What may be harmful for the freedom and good of society can be masked and concealed by the distribution of new and entertaining novelties. The technology, which puts a camera down your gut for medical purposes, is also used to limit your freedom by surveillance. The purveyors of innovative technology come up with all sorts of new gadgets, which divert, entertain and feed the acquisitive needs of insatiable shoppers, and bolster the economy. The theme of “Everything’s up to date in Kansas City” only takes on a downside when individual experience – exploding breast implants, say – takes the gilt off the gingerbread. Out of every innovation for evil (i.e. designed for harming and destroying) some ‘good’ (i.e. public diversion or entertainment) can be promoted for profit or crowd-pleasing.
viii) Nasa is sending a spacecraft to Mars, or so we are told. They plan to trundle across the Martian surface searching for signs of water and life. We do not hear dissenting voices about its feasibility. Why is it that, when a person accounts that their mind is being disrupted and they are being persecuted by an unseen method of invasive technology, that we cannot bring ourselves to believe them? Could it be that the horror involved in the empathic identification required brings the shutters down? Conversely, the shared experience of the blasting of objects into space brings with it the possibilities of shared potency or the relief that resonates in the unconscious of a massive projection or evacuation – a shared experience which is blessed in the name of man’s scientific genius.
ix) The desire ‘not to be taken in’, not to be taken for a fool, provides one of the most powerful and common defence mechanism against credulity."
— Carole Smith (British Psychoanalyst), retrevied from Pennsylvania_State_University's website at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.666.9394&rep=rep1&type=pdf, first published in 2003 on the 'Journal for Psychosocial Studies' by the Association_for_Psychosocial_Studies

87.1.112.55 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-MjolnirPants. That does not seem to me to stand up as psychiatrists agreeing. As is pointed out in one of the articles, the psychiatrists DSM states that the tag of delusions for a group of people with a common different belief is not to be considered as delusional. Also, there is little sign of much peer review on that psychiatric opinion. Where do you get the idea that psychiatrists agree? Jed Stuart (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. Please discuss the actual article content, or proposals for content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jed is referring to this citation from Psychopathology (journal). No, it does not state that people who imagine themselves targeted by electronic mind control should not be considered delusional. If you read the article in its entirety, you see that it argues that the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for delusions exempting persons who belong to a community of common beliefs (Scientology for example) be modified in response to the proliferation of Internet "communities" such as those catering to "TI's". TL;DR: It advocates closing a loophole in the DSM that would allow anyone with an internet connection to find an online community supporting their delusional belief and avoid being diagnosed as delusional. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Jed, I suppose you missed the part that said "The sampled web-published accounts of MCEs are highly likely to be influenced by delusional beliefs." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to the Psychopathology Journal article. I was referring to the article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?pagewanted=all. So I haven't read what you are quoting MjolnirPants, but yes that is consistently the view of most psychiatrists. I accept that as such. I don't need to read other versions of same.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New source just found

Off-topic; Belongs to "Directed-energy weapon"

[1] 80.117.21.77 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say this stuff is being used to covertly harass citizens? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere of course. Did I mean to suggest it does? It's just that this controversy, I guess you may agree with me on this, is as well about the alleged existence of technologies capable of mimicking psychiatric illnesses. It's acknowledged these technologies exist and this source confirms it (as if it really was needed), thus omitting some amount of bias to the claims seems just wrong. Jed Stuard is right on this.

Let's also mention that the public image of psychiatry, especially in the area of clandestine mind control, is grossly ambivalent. Indeed there's no branch of medicine that I know of which has an anti movement other than psychiatry. There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc.

So psychiatry is shifty and it's its own acknowledged history telling so, it's not just about electronic harassment, a bunch of weird people claiming psychiatry is a conspiracy. Also, the MKULTRA program was supervised in great number by important psychiatrists of that time with their entourages. The point is that psychiatry is often too deeply clung to social rather than to medical issues. But it's all in the open anyway, nonetheless the sources used as the ground on which the bias of the page is built on refer mostly to diagnoses via websites. What sort of diagnosing method is that? Don't need to go too far in time to spot psychiatry has a juicy history of cruel abuse on innocents, and governments have that too. To make things worse, they often work together, and I'm not referring explicitely to MKULTRA but to the fact that generally speaking, psychiatric internment is one face of the coin of social control, with the other being prison.

So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". I mean, take Julianne Mckinney for example, she should be considered a reliable source, but she's a whistleblower thus she's not. Take Dr. Nick Begich, same thing. Take Dr. John Hall, same thing. Take Dr. Robert Duncan, same thing again. Take Dr. Rauni Kilde. Take Dennis Kucinich, same thing. Take Jim Guest, same again. Afterall, wikipedia is mainstream media information, just as fox news, cnn, bbc, al jazeera and all the others. So what's all this?.. nothing, just a sad afterpiece as I see it from here. 95.252.92.104 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc. On the contrary, there's quite a bit of anti-medical sentiment out there. Christian Science is the biggest one that comes to mind, although Jehovah's Witnesses often oppose specific medical treatments such as blood transfusions and autopsies, and this link lists more anti-medical religious groups. Then, there's the hundreds of non-religious conspiracy theories world wide opposing specific medical treatments; AIDS denialism, the Anti-vaccination movement, etc, etc... Of course, none of this includes the extremely common view that 'too much' prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed. So, you're not correct at all about psychiatry being unique in this regards.

So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". You're assuming that WP has a position which stems from ideology on this. It does not. The position WP takes is that which realiable sources portray. If that position falls cleanly on one side of a controversial (to some) issue, then I would suggest that this is because that is the correct side of the issue for evidence-based thinkers to take. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Excuse me, what is your hyperbole supposed to mean? At first read I really thought I had got something wrong and that you were right. But then I realized it was just your use of non-standard colors. It seems to me you just decorated a loose attempt to oppose my comment, with arguments that are cited nowhere in the sources. Where did you spot anti-medical religious claims in the sources of electronic harassment? Where did you spot Aids denialism and the Anti-vaccination movement? And where did you spot the claim that "too much prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed" accross the sources???

Despite what you colorfully write, psychiatry is the only branch of medicine with a very well recognized and active anti movement, since decades ago. For your information, there's no recognized Anti-Infectious disease movement and there's never been one as far as I know.. What the hell are you talking about?

Lastly, you're free to believe wikipedia is allowed to publish any content which is not government-aligned as long as it respects the five pillars, but I beg to disagree.

Honestly, you need to get a grip my dear friend. Electronic harassment revolves around specific arguments which are cited in the sources.. we can't simply bring in other arguments trying to give them notability at will. 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded by quoting your exact words. I did so with respect to the context, and I responded clearly and with prosaic and easy-to-understand language and logic. If you can't or won't parse it, then I'm afraid I can't help you further. Simply sitting here and repeating your claims will not make you right, and in my not-inconsiderable experience here, will tend to end with you being ignored by other users. In addition, I would advise you to look up the meaning of the word "hyperbole." Either you're unaware of what it means, or completely ignorant of the irony in you accusing me of engaging on it. Finally, telling me to "get a grip" is a personal attack that can get you blocked from editing. I would advise you to tune down your rhetoric. (P.S: It's also hyperbole.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@95.252.92.104: You lost me at Julianne Mckinney - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: I lost you what? Why? 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recommended Julianne Mckinney as a reliable source. I Googled her, read the crackpottery (that I assume you wish would appear on Wikipedia) and concluded there probably isn't any hope for a productive discussion here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe tag

IMO, this tag applied to the article was done with good intentions, but not fully thought out. The tagger has not specified exactly which parts of the article are giving too much weight to fringe views. I was one of the editors that reworked this article to clean out fringe sources and copyedit the text in order to adequately explain the fringe views while not giving them undue weight. The goal is to describe the fringe views with enough detail from third party reliable sources without giving them undue emphasis or credibility. While I agree the article could use some better organization and polish, the basic weight/sourcing/compliance with WP:FRINGE looks pretty good to me. What do others think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at it and gave it a quick reading, and I have to admit it does look a lot better than the last time I read through it. So I removed the tag, and re-titled the scare-quoted sections. I'm open to re-titling those sections again of course, but the scare quotes just looked awful. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous removal. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: I added the tag. If it wasn't necessary, I apologize. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-in-One

I am uneasy seeing the the article mixes two separate, although related conspiracy theories: (1) existence of psychotronic weapons and (2) harassment by electromagnetic means.

It is natural that the two interleave, overlap and intermix wildly. It is also clear that in many parts they differ. And both cases are no wonder: the claims in both are wild speculations as to the nature of the tools used.

At first I thought to make two articles to clearly separate the two. But then it occurred to me that in the same mixer barrel go various mind control conspiracies. So now I am thinking about a comprehensive article under a descriptive title, Conspiracy theories about mind-targeting weapons. Any thoughts? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed title suggests there are conspiracy beliefs about mind-targeting weapons that are not "electronic". (Are there? I honestly don't know) Also, we already have Psychotronics (with its section on Psychotronics - Conspiracy theories) as a separate article, but with material that largely duplicates what's in this one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"duplicates" - that's one of the reasons of my suggestion. "Are there?" - Did you read the article lately? Yes there are, and that's the second reason of my suggestion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see claims about "alleged infringement of their civil liberties including "beaming rays" at them, putting chemicals in the water, and using magnets to alter their minds". "Putting chemicals in the water" is the only non-electronic mind control claim I see. Are there more? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and using magnets" :-). Not to say "beaming rays" does not specify the nature of rays; kooks may claim they were subject to secret rays of new kind, like, psi-rays, or ultrasonic brain control. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Note Psychotronics (conspiracy theory) redirects to this article. There's no stand-alone for it. I'm kinda torn on this one. I think a more generalized page is better, but I'm not familiar with a lot of mind-control copsiracy theories that aren't all about technology. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek, Yes, I can see what you're going for. Mind control conspiracy theories don't have to meet any standard of any technological feasibility. They are whatever our sources describe they are. But I suppose the bigger question, in terms of the article, is what kind of content would be added. Mind control is a pretty broad topic. While "psychotronic" seems to be a narrower term for mind control that is claimed to use some form of technology (sound waves, light waves, electromagnetic waves, etc.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our mind control article focuses on psychological control ("brainwashing"), i.e., it correctly keeps a single subject for the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this content, if trimmed and summarized, would work extremely well as a "Conspiracy theories" subsection of Mind control. But I do think this is worthy of its own article, as well. However, the more I think about it, the more I think that, for this subject WP:COMMONNAME is the best standard for picking a name. The issue is that, as far as I've seen, "Targeted Individuals" is the most common name, and wouldn't require any disambiguation. However, the name seems too credulous and vague. Do either of you have any thoughts on this? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted individual already redirects here, so we're covered for that common name. If you look at the sources we have, the claims aren't limited to "mind" control. The claims are also that technology is being used to make people physically ill, give them nausea, dizziness, etc. so an article title such as Conspiracy theories about mind-targeting weapons doesn't adequately describe the range of the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

-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)[reply]

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

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Workover

I worked this over a bit to try to make it flow better. There wasn't much description of what folks actually experience and that seems like it should be front and center. So I did that. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing now

I was just looking around in Upwork, and there is an ad:

Hello, I need a seasoned wikipedia editor to help my organization create page for the group of non-consensual test / torture subjects known as TARGETED INDIVIDUALS. It will require good strategy, hard work, and tedious organization and planning. Please email me if you are interested, and check out this short page for background information: www.BiggerThanSnowden.com

Oy Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Feels like this should be cross-posted to WP:FTN - might not just be this article that gets targeted (no pun intended). Kolbasz (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also recent related efforts to organize meatpuppets. If this results in article disruption, a notice at WP:FTN can be helpful, but IMO, Advocacy and COI issues are better handled at WP:AN/I and WP:COIN as they arise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 : 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". [[User:Jed Stuart|Jed Stuart]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Jed Stuart|Jed Stuart]] ([[User talk:Jed Stuart|talk]]) 04:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 == Workover ==