Talk:Electronic harassment

Delusions of delusions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

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

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

References

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

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

"Electronic torture"?

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

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

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

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

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

New source

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

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

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Roger Tolces coined the term?

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

March 2016 - problematic edits by new user

Regarding this series of edits: Wikipedia policy prohibits editors from adding their own opinions to articles, e.g. "Since decades ago, the alleged victims around the world claim their truthfulness, while mental health professionals address their expertise according to their technical knowledge often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing empasse" etc. Also, please read WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTNEUTRAL for a general explanation of why your edits have been reverted. If you are unclear about specific reasons for reversions, please discuss here rather than edit war - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding what is going on here. As far as I can tell none of the involved editors are pushing the point of view that electronic harassment is real -- put perhaps I am missing subtleties. Could we have some discussion here of what each involved editor is trying to accomplish? But if nothing else, can people who are reverting at the very least specify what version they are reverting to? I have completely lost track of where this article has gone. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic_harassment#Article_Structure is a good starting point to understand what the SPAs are trying to accomplish. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw much the same things as Looie. Both versions of the article seem to be at least implicitly accepting that this is not a real phenomenon. The longer version (pushed by the SPA) edges dangerously close to implying that it is real, from what I read, but that should be easily correctable. Since WP generally prefers longer articles to shorter ones, shouldn't we be trying to correct that version? I'm not advocating for it, mind. I'm asking for objections so as to better understand the position of those opposed to that version. I certainly don't want an article that doesn't make it clear that this is not at all real. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The SPAs have been pushing to restructure the article to separate the psychiatric view from the delusional claims, as if the claims deserve to stand on their own as equally credible to the consensus of mental health professionals. Their version gives weight to the delusional claims via the sheer amount of material devoted to the claimants stories. Also problematic is a synthesis of "evidence" sympathetic to delusional claims, such as a selectively quoted working document supposedly representing the views of the European Parliament (which it explicitly does not), and citations to primary sources misrepresented as "Legislative interventions", as well as lavish coverage of "Incidents" used as a WP:SOAPBOX for detailed claims of electronic harassment. That said, if you'd like to work on a sandbox version that avoids these issues while adding more material from our reliable sources, feel free to have at it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's happening here. I draw a distinction between a mental illness with delusions of being controlled or harassed by electronic signals, and the conspiracy theory that this is actually happening. That's why I didn't see the issue, because what the SPA was pushing as 'documentation' of the 'real' phenomenon, I was seeing as documentation of the conspiracy theory.

Still though, it looked to me like we could re-work that SPA version to make it clear it's talking about the conspiracy theory, don't you think? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable sources that frame the topic as a conspiracy theory. Have you run across any? AFAIK, our best sources (the Post and the Times) frame the topic as claims by individuals who are convinced the government is personally targeting their minds using mysterious technological devices -- claims that psychiatry and mental health professionals view as delusional. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of any off the top of my head. It's a very common trope in conspiracy theories, though. Hence the stereotype of wearing a tinfoil hat. I'm sure there are some. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Try "Tinfoil hat". If it has none, and you find some, please add there too. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not framed as a conspiracy theory, I agree. It is framed as an unknown phenomena. They don't offer much analysis or opinion, they mainly describe the victims view and the psychiatric view. We don't have a definition of EH so we might be talking about different things. Some say it's real some say it's not but what is it? Roger Tolce's definition is wide. It includes using any electronic device to harm another person. So bugging is EH, a hidden camera in the shower is EH. Nobody is going to say that these sorts of incidents are not real, are they? I saw in a tech toys shop the other day a remote microphone that boasts that it allows for listening to a conversation 100m away. That is EH. All such incidents that are included in EH have to involve some assailant, usually unknown. That is not a conspiracy theory until we start speculating about who is doing it. TIs do have conspiracy theories and those are well enough described in the sources, and should be included I think. That doesn't mean that the article supports any particular conspiracy theory.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It is framed as mental illness. This is abundantly clear from our reliable sources. After some digging, some additional sources about "TI's" were found here, and here. (And Staszek Lem and MjolnirPants were correct, at least one of these sources refers to the "TI's" beliefs as a "conspiracy theory")- LuckyLouie (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am getting your second link "dspace.smith.edu cannot be reached". The only bit of opinion that I can find in the Washington Post article says:

"But, 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."

They don't say anywhere that they think the TI claims are evidence of mental illness. They describe the psychiatric view that it is mental illness, which is a different thing. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)