Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The Sub-Heading Labelled "Conspiracy theories"

This heading seems to me to be mislabeled.

First of all, the first paragraph of this section begins with the term "mind control" which, by the way, is not mentioned anywhere previously in the article. This paragraph should probably begin with the term "Electronic harassment", for clarity's sake.

Second, why isn't the claim about advocates using a "2002 Air Force Research Laboratory patent for using microwaves to send spoken words into someone's head" sourced? I would like for the source of the patent to be added to the article. In fact, there are two patents by the Air Force which outline a method of sending intelligible speech to a human using radio frequency waves. I think it would be important to add at least one source to this claim.

Finally, the last sentence of the paragraph ("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.") is also misleading. According to Wikipedia's page on non-thermal effects of microwaves, there is in fact some evidence that non-thermal effects of microwaves do exist. This sentence must be changed for accuracy. PaulGosar (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

References

On Wikipedia, we go by what our sources say, and all text is summarized from those sources, and cited using those little footnote numbers you see. We use the term mind control because that's what our source uses, and it accurately describes how conspiracy theorists and mind control advocates define "electronic harassment". We don't do original research; in other words, we don't search patents to find things that back up or refute our sources. In any case, patents are detailed descriptions of claims, they don't guarantee something actually exists or can work. The last sentence I changed to better reflect what the cited source says and removed the reference to "non-thermal effects". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay. There are a few edits that I would like to suggest but I will introduce them one by one, after each suggestion is addressed. My first suggestion stems from an inaccuracy in the first sentence of the first paragraph under the subheading labelled "Conspiracy theories".

The Washington Post article that is cited mentions "Project Pandora", not "Operation Pandora", and states definitively that "Project Pandora" did exist and was funded by the Pentagon. According to the source, there is no evidence of any rumor surrounding "Project Pandora" - it did in fact exist. The term "rumor" used in the first sentence of the first paragraph is not supported by the evidence.

As well, according to the Washington Post source, "Project Pandora" is not described as a "Soviet attempt to "brainwash Americans"", but rather as "top-secret research to explore the behavioral and biological effects of low-level microwaves...zapping monkeys; exposing unwitting sailors to microwave radiation; and conducting a host of other unusual experiments." This information should probably be used as the descriptor for "Project Pandora".

In short, the first sentence of the first paragraph in this subheading ought to be changed to:

"Mind control conspiracy advocates often cite a CIA file called "Project Pandora", which outlines top-secret research funded by the Pentagon to explore the behavioral and biological effects of microwave radiation."

Please make these changes.

PaulGosar (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

I have a question. What relationship did "Project Pandora" have with "Project Blackbriar"? Further, should this relationship be detailed in this article? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just the facts, ma'am. - PaulGosar (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

There was a source that cited Jack Anderson (columnist) for the "Operation Pandora" brainwashing rumors. I removed it as unneeded. I added a new Sharon Weinberger source to help clarify Project Pandora and its context, as related to conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason you decided to keep the word rumors? There is no evidence cited to support that this is a rumor. This is an unsupported attribution, and frowned upon in the Wikipedia Manual of Style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias …. Please remove this word.

Also, why have you removed that Project Pandora was funded by the Pentagon. This is a well sourced fact. By writing "a US research effort" instead of "a Pentagon funded research effort" you have made the article more vague. Overall, your edit has made the first sentence more confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiednj (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Turns out Pandora was more specifically a DARPA project. OK well since the article section in question discusses claims of people who think the government is electronically harassing them (rather than Pandora, which is covered at the Moscow Signal article), I've extracted detail from the sources and copyedited accordingly - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind (I used to have an academic source for this, but cannot find it, but according to my OR as an electronics engineer I know that it is true) is that all of these government programs and other examples that the True Believers keep dragging up involve actual radio waves, actual microwaves, actual sound waves, actual electric fields -- things that any engineer can easily measure using standard test equipment. What the True Believers are trying to get us to believe is that there is some magical form of electronic harassment that cannot be detected by any measuring instrument. There was a paper by an engineering professor that said the same thing. I will post here if I find it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A related argument I've heard is, "we can't know what advanced technology and otherworldly capabilities the government keeps hidden", supposedly all designed to manipulate you and me (especially you, Guy). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that argument. It's a bit of a Russell's teapot; I can't disprove it. What I do know it that the knowledge that I have as an electronics engineer appears to match the real world. I have designed products that ended up being produced at a rate of 100,000 units per hour. Over half of the commercial airlines flying today have parts that I designed or that were tested with test equipment that I designed. So I am pretty confident that what I know about electronics matches the way the real world works. And I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are not any advanced technologies that put out some sort of -- something -- that I cannot detect but which nonetheless controls people's minds. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, there's plenty of techno paranoia to go around. You may want to keep Microwave auditory effect on your watchlist as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A prime example. The actual military experiments involved microwaves that could be easily measured with a meter. The conspiracy theories involve something that the meter says does not exist.

Such meters are surprisingly affordable. You can get a reasonably good one for $22[1] and one that is as good as the one I use for $150[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, don’t encourage them. -LuckyLouie (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

So, the arguments that the two of you have presented fail on many grounds. Appeal to authority ("I am an expert, believe me") is a very common logical fallacy and is not even worth a grain of salt in this discussion. Second, you presuppose that all "True Believers" have not been able to measure such signals, while at least one "True Believer" claims to have. Third, even if a "True Believer" is able to measure some sort of anomalous electric field in his or her presence, this does not "prove" electronic harassment. Which is what makes electronic harassment so insidious - it is very hard to prove. But this does not give you the right to belittle over perhaps 10,000 people. I will continue to provide well sourced information to make this page more accurate. PaulGosar (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

Larson never claimed to be able to measure any signal. This should not surprise anyone, seeing as how there is no signal to be measured. Also, he is batshit insane, so you have that going for you. The kind of electronic harassment you are talking about (not detectable by standard test instruments) doesn't exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Attacking Larson as insane is an Ad hominem attack, another logical fallacy. So you've got that going for you ;).

The kind of electronic harassment I am talking about is the kind of electronic harassment that Larson describes, which was detectable by standardized test instruments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGosar (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's just say that Larson's claim of a conspiracy of ham radio operators in LA (somehow) using the local 220 repeater in a plot to stimulate and obtain telemetry from unwilling human participants is...spectacularly uninformed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

[EC] PaulGosar's claims are bullshit. Larson puts makes a series of claims, some of which are impossible, and which notably do not involve any claims that he or anyone else detected any signals using standardized test instruments. PaulGosar just made that part up.

First, Larson claims that certain small devices were implanted in his body, and gives photos of them. Now I wasn't there and thus cannot say the he is lying or that he implanted them himself, but I do note the lack up any doctor or other medical professional who confirms the alleged removal. Let's accept this part at face value; it is at least possible to implant small devices in tissue and to later remove them, so nothing impossible so far.

Next Larson speculates about them being identical to the devices in patent US6175764B1.[3] Ignoring the fact that production electronics seldom resembles what is in the illustrations in a patent, it is possible that two electronic devices are identical.

Next Larson claims that these devices somehow do some undefined thing other than what the patent claims (stimulating muscles with an electrical current and monitoring the immediate environment of the implant). I can't evaluate whether this one is impossible because he never quite gets around to saying what he thinks these implants did to him.

Then Larson for some reason starts talking about videophones. Yes doctors use videophones to diagnose patients remotely. Yes the videophones can be wired up to a heart monitor, blood pressure cuff, etc. So what? Did Larson find a videophone in his house with wires going to his body? No. The fact that videophones exist is irrelevant.

The Larson starts talking about ham radio licenses and repeaters as if they could communicate with the implants. Here he veers into the impossible. It is impossible for any device that small with no external power supply to have a range of more than a meter or so. If this was not so, the RFID manufacturers would really like to hear about it. Also, the body acts as an effective Faraday shield, stopping signals in the ham bands. If you look at the patent, it shows what all tiny implantable devices require: a device right next to the skin that emits a really large and very low frequency electric field to power the device. Did he find one of those strapped to him? No.

Finally, anyone can monitor the output of a ham repeater, and many people do. If there was any signal on there other than what the hams themselves create, there would be a hunt for the bogus transmitter that is tying up valuable repeater bandwidth. You can't just assert that normal radio transmitters like ham repeaters or AM radio towers are talking to your implants. You have to show evidence that [A] such signals exist, and [B] that it is possible for them to communicate with a such tiny device that is basically implanted in a bag of water.

Show me a true believer who hires an engineer who then brings his test equipment and detects some sort of radio signal coming out of the true believer's body. Or who detects some sort of unknown data in the output of any nearby radio transmitter. Until then I stand by my expert conclusion as an electronics engineer: Impossible claim.

Of course none of this matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned. All that matters is whether you have reliable secondary sources to back up your claims per WP:V and WP:RS. You do not. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. GuyMacon writes "All that matters is whether you have reliable secondary sources to back up your claims" and then provides zero sources to back up his claims *facepalm*.

Guy’s ridiculousness aside, he assumes that just because Larson did not write about any sort of power device in his report that such a device did not exist. As well, Guy assumes that "if there was a bogus signal, then there would be a hunt for it" which is also a tremendous assumption. He then requires a “True Believer” hire an engineer to prove his claims, as though this would resolve the issue. His assumptions are unfounded – as are his abrasive attitude, feckless remarks, and persistent efforts to label himself as an "expert". Guy is as much an expert in this field as an inbred orangutan, as far as I am concerned, for he has not provided any proof of his claims.

Moreover, GuyMacon and LuckyLouie continue to bring up the issue that no "True Believer" has been able to measure an electronic signal involved in electronic harassment. This is such a bogus argument. Even if a “True Believer” were to measure a signal, would it definitively prove electronic harassment?

The amount of money it would cost to prove that an anomalous signal is the cause of negative symptoms would severely cross the $22 threshold GuyMacon has so colloquially proffered above. To prove such a thing, one would require sympathetic law enforcement, an expensive lawyer, countless experts (like my friend Guy ;-]) on the payroll, and a knowledgeable judge/jury. As well, there would be a significant threat to the "true believer's" time, health, and reputation to pursue such an effort. Citing the affordability of a meter as a way to definitively prove or disprove electronic harassment is intellectually lazy, and the two of you are better then that.

The fact that there are weapons which produce similar effects to what “True Believers” are suggesting should be mentioned on the wiki page. Evidence for such weapons come from the following sources. James Giordano, Professor of Neurology and Biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center, in a speech delivered to members of the United States Special Operations Command (a unit of the Army), states

The work of the Nuffield Council in 2013 demonstrated that neuroscience was already being weaponized which would yield individuals to be put in harm’s way. In 2014, The National Academies’ and National Research Council stated that brain sciences were in use globally as neuroweapons… to disrupt cognition emotion and behavior. Certainly there are devices that are widely available and that we also know there have been dedicated activities in the neuroweapons space by a variety of nation-states that would be capable of doing just this type of thing.

James Giordano, Professor of Neurology and Biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center, Sofwerx.org.

As well, Sharon Weinberger, DC Bureau Chief for Yahoo News, writes in her article for Nature.com, that the US Air Force has been studying the bioeffects of microwave weapons since at least the 1990’s, specifically through “Project Hello, Good Bye, Goodnight”. She writes

A project code-named Hello studied how to modulate the clicking or buzzing sounds produced by microwave heating in the inner ear, to produce psychologically devastating 'voices in the head'. 'Goodbye' explored the use of microwaves for crowd control. And 'Good Night' looked at whether they could be used to kill people.

Sharon Weinberger, Nature.com.

Even CNN, on September 2 2018, reported that microwave weapons

can cause nausea, loud sounds, and hearing loss. There might even be voices or a message that people have been victimized by (via microwave weapons). The Soviet Union has a microwave weapons program going back decades, and such weapons “leave no trace”.

[[]], Cnn.com.

Does this evidence categorically prove all the claims of “True Believers”? No. You would still need to prove that these weapons are being tested on innocents either in the US or abroad. Given the US history of unethical experimentation, this does not seem too farfetched. However, making no assumptions at all, it is still certain that weapons which cause the symptoms “True Believers” report do in fact exist.

You will probably attempt to undermine the information I provided, find small inaccuracies, and denigrate my character or the character of the sources. You might even dredge up other sources in which the claims of these authors are contradicted. But any contradiction does not justify the censorship of this information under Wikipedia’s neutrality clause. I have provided well sourced facts which must be exhibited on the page in order for the “electronic harassment” article to retrain some shred of neutrality.

When I try to make an edit using articles already cited on the “electronic harassment” wiki (specifically, this source) which states that not all “True Believer’s” are delusional, and this edit is summarily disallowed – I have to say that wikipedia’s neutrality clause is being violated. I will write the edit again, according to Wiki’s guidelines, and if it is censored again, then I think we need to get the mods involved.PaulGosar (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

References

Rant all you want. The fact remains that there is nothing there that can be measured. Every single military use of electronic weapons involved things such as subsonics and microwaves that are easily detected and measured, especially at the high levels needed to do anything to the target individual. Bloviate all you want; the facts will not go away. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@PaulGosar, you said I will write the edit again, according to Wiki’s guidelines, and if it is censored again, then I think we need to get the mods involved. Rather than edit warring (which will end badly for you), I think a better course of action would be for you to propose your changes here on the Talk page. Clearly indicate which sections or phrases you feel should be replaced or added to, what they should be replaced with or have added, and which sources you feel should be cited for the changes. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article is about the conspiracy theory of psychotronic torture, not about disproving the conspiracy theory. Undue weight is being given to the opinions of 'mental health professionals'. Even skimming the page briefly, it is hard to get an idea of what the conspiracy is. I propose we add a 'history' subheading, as well as a 'description' subheading, to begin with. Generally, we should try to model the Chemtrail page.PaulGosar (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

We need to clearly identify pseudoscientific subjects as such per WP:FRINGELEVEL. What viewpoints do you believe are being under-represented in favor of the experts? Chemtrail is a start-class article, so there's no reason to think it is particularly selection of a model. Fundamentally, EH is significantly harder to define/outline than chemtrails so it's easy for me to imagine that the articles should look pretty different. The "Experiences" section seems to be fulfilling the same purpose as the "Description" section in chemtrails. What sources/content would be organized into a history section? VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Under WP:FRINGE, proportional weight must be given to majority and minority views. Based on the sources used in this article thus far, the weighting of this entry may in fact be accurate, though I would argue not. It is important however, in order to maintain neutrality, to bring in sources which more clearly define the minority view. One edit, as I have suggested in the past, is to include Bell's statement (found here) stating that not all people participating in mind-control sites are delusional, and that a firm diagnosis of psychosis could only be done in person (not to mention the paradox he brings up about EH being a delusion at all). This could be a minor edit listed under the subheading "Support and advocacy communities" where Bell is discussed.

As well, there are sources which, I believe have been discussed in the archives, from Wired.Com which may help to balance the selective bias delivered on this page. One such link resides here, I will post more when I have time. I feel like including information from the source I have posted may elucidate the minority view more clearly.

As far as the history subheading is concerned, we might want to discuss the origins of mind control, patents which have stemmed the conspiracy theory, and Project Hello (undertaken by USAirForce) which attempted to beam psychologically devastating voices in peoples heads as a method of electronic warfare. As well, we might want to talk about how the increasing risks of neuroweapons as outlined by the Nuffield Council in 2013 and The National Academies’ and National Research Council in 2014, and the dedicated activities in the neuroweapons space by a variety of nation-states (see above) have led fodder for conspiracy theorists beliefs.

On another note, I echo the concerns of User:GDallimore who brings up the issue that so prominently displaying the list of shooters who claim to be electronically harassed without balance is very extreme position and the other sources don't offer anything clear to balance it out.

I think adding more sources, or even adding the minority view from the sources we have (as I attempted to do concerning my edit of the Pentagon funding "Project Bizarre, (see above)) could alleviate these concerns. I also want to bring your attention to WP:GANG, just to let you know you do not own this page, and also to WP:ENCOURAGE. I mean no ill-will nor vandalism, but I do have serious concerns about the neutrality of this page.PaulGosar (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

Bell, being a responsible doctor, cannot diagnose an individual he hasn't met with the medical diagnosis of "delusional". It would be dishonest for us to imply that he supports the fringe view that electronic harassment is a real thing based on this information. Brainwashing or "mind control" is a different subject that this one, which is about magic voices. What sources are you proposing using that connect "project hello" with the subject of this article? On the list of shooters, I think Dalton can be removed because the source doesn't say that he believed he was "electronically harassed" per se. What is the "minority view" that you mention? More generally, work on concision and propose specific edits and provide proposed sources, please. I don't see any mention of "Project Bizarre" above. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bell portion, as it stands, is making a judgment about the mental state of "Targeted Individuals" as a group, stating that Bell believes the group very likely to be schizophrenic based on the links they post. The unmentioned disclaimer is exactly what you said - Bell cannot diagnose an individual solely on the links that they post. This is not a valid diagnostic method. That whole source is very bad. Who are these unnamed psychologists and what is the evidence that link analysis can lead to a diagnosis? When did 10 individuals become a valid sample size by which to paint a whole community? This whole paragraph needs better citations, and I am removing it for now.

I agree with you that a separate entry could be made on 'Mind Control' (separate from brainwashing), and I started to make that point above, before I mentioned "Project Pandora*" (project bizarre is similar and was brought up by LuckyLouie). However, I don't think this article is about magic voices only. Targeted Individuals report a host of different symptoms, almost all of the same symptoms as affected diplomats in Cuba. From the articles I have read, a large theme is that targeted individuals feel that they are hit by Directed Energy Weapons. Some have magic voices, some do not. Some have 'gangstalking', some do not. This should all be clarified. I will be glad to provide specific edits in the future and am glad that we have gotten the ball rolling.PaulGosar (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

Your opinion about whether the Bell study was "valid diagnostic method" is not relevant. Additional details are available in the actual study (I would imagine) though it appears to be paywalled. I can request a copy; I'll not link it as a source supporting anything without reading it. I find it remarkable that you've gone from wanting to increase use of Bell via selective quotes to wanting mention of the study removed altogether so quickly. VQuakr (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@PaulGosar. I'm not familiar with "Project Bizarre", but yes, it appears there are a great many varieties of obviously delusional beliefs held by proponents, but unless an WP:FRIND independent source discusses them, we can't justify adding exhaustive detail. Also, WP:FRINGE doesn't say we need to give both fringe and mainstream ideas "equal time". In fact WP:GEVAL specifically warns against that. And finally, WP:CONSENSUS is not WP:GANG. This encyclopedia's editorial policies were intentionally set up to clearly distinguish fantasy from reality and prevent sympathetic treatment of crackpot ideas. So don't take resistance to your suggestions personally. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." From WP:WEIGHT and mentioned in the first sentence of WP:FRINGE. Currently, undue weight is being given to the view of mental health professionals. Never said "equal time", not sure where you are getting that.PaulGosar (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

"mental health professionals" is a group of people, not a viewpoint.

1. Exactly what, in your opinion, is the viewpoint that is being given excessive coverage?
2. What leads you to conclude that the level of coverage currently in the article on that viewpoint is undue? VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It is my understanding that in regards to electronic harassment (the conspiracy theory that the government or rouge individuals are using Directed Energy Weapons against innocents) there are two schools of thought, or viewpoints.

1. The majority viewpoint (the view of mental health professionals) which don't believe electronic harassment is occurring, and that Targeted Individuals are crazy.
2. The minority viewpoint that electronic harassment is in fact occurring.

Do we agree so far? PaulGosar

Not even close. The views of mental health professionals are mainstream, not WP:FRINGE, and thus WP:WEIGHT says to include them, not exclude them. The views of those who claim that electronic harassment is a real thing despite every electronic measuring device saying that it isn't are WP:FRINGE. And as far as I can tell, NOBODY agrees with you. I suggest that you follow the advice at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not agree. The viewpoint that EH is real is not a "minority viewpoint", because that implies some level of acceptance in reliable sources where none have been demonstrated. VQuakr (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Re : agreement. Are you being serious? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 03:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but we will have to start somewhere re: agreement. Do you agree with my definition of electronic harassment? And if not please post what you feel is the definition of electronic harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGosar (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the definition in the first sentence of this article is better. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing articles.

@GuyMacon Please stop with the personal attacks. This is the second time you have attacked me personally. Attack me again and I will be forced to alert the administrators. See WP:PERSONAL if you are confused. PaulGosar (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar I cannot see any "personal attacks" here. He said your opinions are fringe, which is about your opinions and not your person. He said nobody agrees with you, which is also not about your person. And please learn how to sign your contributions already, by adding four tildes at the end. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Lead section

The first and second sentence need improving based on the information that I have seen. Please reference WP:MOSLEAD when suggesting edits.

The sentence reads:

"Electronic harassment, electromagnetic torture or psychotronic torture is a conspiracy theory that government agents make use of electromagnetic radiation (such as the microwave auditory effect), radar, and surveillance techniques to transmit sounds and thoughts into people's heads, affect people's bodies, and harass people.[1][2] Individuals who claim to experience this call themselves "targeted individuals"[3] who are victims of gang stalking and many have joined support and advocacy groups."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGosar (talk • contribs)

Learn to sign your posts. I'm not going to do it for you. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So it needs improving, but you can't be bothered to suggest a change or even voice an actionable concern? VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@PaulGosar; What are your suggested changes? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

based on the information that I have seen Without links to those sources they are difficult to evaluate. —PaleoNeonate – 01:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved'. Consensus against moving especially to the proposed target. A better name can be proposed again as there's feeling the current name (and of course, the target) are not okay. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Electronic harassment → Electronic harassment conspiracy theory – The conspiracy theory can't be the primary topic for this title. Both Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking are good redirect targets after the move. I don't have a strong opinion either way wumbolo ^^^ 13:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Wumbolo: can you provide evidence that a strong majority of reliable sources, when discussing "Electronic harassment", are talking about the subjects discussed at your two proposed redirect targets? Your unsupported assertion alone is not adequate reason to move an article to a less concise title. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Any scholarly search engine hits only actual cyberbullying when searching for "electronic harassment". A Google News search for the term shows that a vast majority of sources talk about the real thing. wumbolo ^^^ 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NPOV, we should not be making such a factual conclusion ("conspiracy theory"), especially in an article title where it can't be refuted by counterpoints. Not opposed to some other change, with evidence, of what the WP:COMMONNAME of this subject is. -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a NPOV issue with the title, as we unambiguously call it a "conspiracy theory" in the lede already. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move I just did a google search on "electronic harassment" (it's important to include the quotation marks). Out of the top 50 results, 34 (including the top 14) referred to the conspiracy theory, 14 referred to cyberbullying, telephone harassment, etc., one was a song[4] and one I couldn't tell which it was talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I did similar and agree; the existing name does appear correct. We already link to cyberbullying in a hat note. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY tells us to look to Usage in English reliable sources, not web flotsam or other WP:SPS, so a Google web search full of Wordpress blogs and Change.org petitions is of no value. Every single Google News hit in the first ten pages for "electronic harassment" [5] is about cyberbullying or similar. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Using Google News instead of Goggle search is a terrible way to determine the primary usage. Google news is heavily loaded with police reports. The police publish reports of actual cyber bullying but not of someone claiming that satellites are controlling their thoughts. Those go to psychiatric evaluation and HIPAA makes it illegal for the police to talk about them. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar [6] shows exactly the same pattern of usage as Google News: every single one of the first 100 hits is about cyberbullying or similar topics. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And what happens when you search Google news and Google scholar for "electronic harassment conspiracy theory"? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't gone as far as figuring out what the title of this article should be, but it's very clear it shouldn't be squatting at the primary. If it doesn't have another common name, then it should have a parenthetical disambiguator. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move and maintain status quo, as the default condition. The nominator hasn't demonstrated that the subject of this article isn't the primary topic for the term "electronic harassment". VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I would like to discuss some issues addressed in the archives, do I make a new section or edit the sections already created (in the archive)?

Specifically, the merger of 'psychotronic weapons' and 'electronic harassment', and the issues brought up by Staszek Lem (there was supposed to be a section dedicated to psychotronic weaponry as a condition of the merger).

Also the inclusion of Health Attacks in Cuba in this article. Our definition of 'eh' necessitates a more serious discussion of Cuba Health attacks in this article.

I also want to know if it is possible to source this CNN video where the expert they have on TV says "can cause nausea, loud sounds, and hearing loss. There might even be voices or a message that people have been victimized by (via microwave weapons). The Soviet Union has a microwave weapons program going back decades, and such weapons “leave no trace”."

Also I would like to add this source this video where James Giordano, Professor of Neurology and Biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center states that psychotronic weapons are currently available and very likely being deployed against US citizens.PaulGosar (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not edit the archives. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as Roxy said, don't edit the archives, better to keep discussion here. As for your requests:

• Psychotronics weapons section - Psychotronic weapons are discussed in the article, in the Conspiracy theories section, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. There may be more to add to it, but we'd need WP:RS, and I see you have suggested a few. RT.com isn't a RS. Medium.com is a blog and not a RS. The NYT has one sentence that reiterates what we already have in the article. That leaves wired.com; a story about claimed mind-reading technology developed in Russia by the wife of Igor Smirnov. Nothing about harassment. IMO, the source would better be suited to the Igor Smirnov article than this one.
• Health attacks in Cuba - we have the Havana syndrome article, which reflects all the latest reliably-sourced information, and microwaves have been mentioned by experts as a possible cause, but such speculations are being downplayed by some and endorsed by others. Please note that it is also briefly mentioned in the Microwave auditory effect article. I don't see how it would improve the article, but if other experienced editors think we should include a line or two about Havana syndrome in the article, I wouldn't object.
• CNN video - The person being interviewed is "Patrick Oppman, Havana-based correspondent" for CNN, and he is not an expert. The anchor asks "if there is any credence" to reports about Russia being behind it, voices or messaging, and Oppman offers some off the cuff opinions that Soviets had microwave weapon programs going back years. So no, these are no experts, and WP doesn't consider video clips of anchors and reporters as authoritative sources (unless the topic is the reporters themselves).
• YouTube video featuring James Giordano - I haven't watched this all the way through (I'll leave that pleasure to someone else) but it seems to be one neuroscientists speculations on future weaponization. If he goes beyond speculation and actually makes any factual claims (doubtful) then WP:EXTRAORDINARY would apply. In other words, if researchers found a cure for cancer, a YouTube video wouldn't be the only source of facts about it.

Hope this helps answer your questions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Any documented justification for why RT.com is not RS or is that just your opinion? PaulGosar (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It comes up often. RT.com is not a great source for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It comes up very often at WP:RSN where there is a search box you can use to see for yourself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

PaulGosar, to clarify: Psychotronic weapons was merged to Psychotronics as a result of this discussion at WP:AFD. Psychotronics (conspiracy theory) was in turn merged here. That distinction is significant, because it means there was a central discussion specifically about "psychotronic weapons" that resulted in a consensus that a dedicated article was not warranted. Granted, that was 5 years ago and consensus can change, but this current article is only 21 kB long so it seems unlikely that splitting that content back out is warranted at this time. VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Did not suggest a 'dedicated article'. Rather, a subhead, which based on the discussion in the archives, is warranted. --PaulGosar (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't say anything about a subsection. You talked about undoing an old merger, which implies creating a new article. I do not understand why we would put a section about "psychotronic weapons" in this article, which is about a conspiracy theory. VQuakr (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am saying now - we should add a subsection titled 'psychotronics'. We would add a subsection discussing psychotronic weapons because they are weapons that supposedly target the mind with electromagnetism, and that is within the scope of this article. It is important to include the actual psychotronic weapons that have been developed/researched on this page. Psychotronics redirects to this page. So a subheading titled psychotronics should be added. --PaulGosar (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't sound remotely close to alignment with the subject of this article. If you can get consensus for it, maybe a section at Directed-energy weapon? You can discuss retargeting of the redirect at that article's talk page, too. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

James Giordano states directed energy can cause Targeted Individual symptoms, medical journal agrees

In reference to James Giordano source, seen here, Giordano states that 'neuroweapons' already exists. Another editor called these claims extraordinary, and not worth citing in the eh article. However, this information is cited in medical journals. One example can be seen in the discussion section of this article here, from the medical journal 'Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology. Giordano and the source above both agree that directed energy can cause cavitation bubbles which affect the body negatively. Based on our definition of EH, due coverage is warranted.

links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw8J_T-O4Os&t=85s https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/lio2.231

--PaulGosar (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we're not using a Youtube video. VQuakr (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And there are no new revelations in the linked paper "Acute Findings in an Acquired Neurosensory Dysfunction" that state that "neuroweapons" exist. It only makes some brief references to known effects of microwaves on humans (which is already covered at microwave auditory effect) and references to speculation about microwave exposure (that is already covered at Havana syndrome). Trying to 'connect the dots' between various sources to suggest that neuroweapons exist and are being used on TI's is pure WP:SYNTHESIS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Worse, he is trying to connect the dots between a real source of electromagnetic radiation which is easily measured with a standard RF meter and a mythical "electromagnetic effect" which cannot be detected by any instrument. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Its pretty easy to ascertain that a weapon used on a person in Cuba could also be used on a person in Florida. Not too many dots to connect. --PaulGosar (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding the information from "Acute Findings in an Acquired Neurosensory Dysfunction" to the microwave auditory effect article is a good idea, LuckyLouie. The information provided from "Acute Findings..." does not appear on the microwave auditory effect page, so maybe we should add it. However, as a stated earlier, Giordano (an expert in the field) says that neuroweapons exist. He cites the work of the Nuffield Council in 2013 and The National Academies’ and National Research Council in 2014, which also state that neuroweapons exist. At Wikipedia, we have to report what the facts from WP:RS show. We can't just omit facts based on whimsical opinion.

If you would like to discuss which article on wikipedia to place this information, that may actually be useful. --PaulGosar (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not appear to have an article on Giordano, and I don't see anything that looks like his work on G Scholar. Can you support your claim that he is a recognized expert in the field? VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I notice his speculations have been embraced by the fringe community as supposed proof of neuroweapons. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It also seems "Acute Findings in an Acquired Neurosensory Dysfunction" is being promoted by fringe mind control/conspiracy theorists. Interesting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering this is an article about electronic harassment, and psychotronics redirects here, information about neuroweapons fits the scope of this article. Here is Giordano's bio, you can click the link yourself. https://clinicalbioethics.georgetown.edu/JGiordano --PaulGosar (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Paul, have you read WP:RS yet? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have Roxy, thanks! ;-]--PaulGosar (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Crickets

Crickets! They're everywhere!

Literally. This article might be interesting: 'Sonic attack' on US embassy in Havana could have been crickets, say scientists --mfb (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Are we in Occam's Razor territory here? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That's just what The Crickets would like you to believe. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

They want us to believe their music is so bad it makes people sick? --mfb (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You’re confusing The Crickets with The Smiths. Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI https://twitter.com/weinbergersa/status/1082356080590680064 --PaulGosar (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

So Paul, which source do you prefer for wikipedia, The Groan, or Twitter? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I say take all the latest theories and speculations stuff to Talk:Havana syndrome where it belongs. And by the way... - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

agreed @LuckyLouie --PaulGosar (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the Weinberger story is specifically about the EH conspiracy theory and discusses the Moscow signal in context. The Havana Syndrome stories do not mention the conspiracy theory. That’s why one is relevant and the other isn’t. -LuckyLouie (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

As you stated, the Weinberger story is specifically about the EH conspiracy theory, and gives Moscow Signal passing mention. Weinberger allocates 32 words out of 7200 to MS. You allocate 32 words out of 144. Undue Coverage. --PaulGosar (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I see your edits have removed mention that "the Soviets intent was eavesdropping and electronic jamming rather than mind control" and added mention that Pandora was "exposing unwitting sailors to microwave radiation". I doubt you will find WP:CONSENSUS here for these edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul, if you are counting words then you are doing WP:DUE wrong. We need to follow our other policies and guidelines, too (as well as have writing that makes sense). And your proposed edit doesn't match the source, so it quickfails. VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we have to go by what our sources say. The WaPo Source says that Project Pandora was top secret. This is obviously remarkable in an entry about conspiracy theorists. The source also says Pandora involved "exposing unwitting sailors to microwave radiation". Our page is about covert harassment with microwave weapons, so this is obviously remarkable as well. You can't just omit facts that don't serve your purpose by calling them PROFRINGE. They are literally taken from the source. Are you saying that the WaPo is PROFRINGE? What about my proposed edit doesn't match the source? --PaulGosar (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Many projects are top secret - that isn't remarkable. We go by what the sources (note the plural) say; we don't have a requirement to stick to the phrasing in one cherry-picked quote. The WaPo article is not the only source that mentions that study. The phrasing you propose makes it sound as if people were intentionally exposed to microwaves, when in reality it was an occupational exposure study of the health effects of microwaves sailors were getting exposed to as part of their existing duties. That makes your proposed edit both sensationalistic and irrelevant to the topic of this article, which is about a conspiracy theory. VQuakr (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have just looked at the wikipages for Project MKUltra, Opreation Midnight Climax, and Project Artichoke, all mention that they were top secret. The wiki for Project Vela, undertaken by DARPA, doesn't mention secrecy classifications, yet it was top-secret classified. I had to look in a book to find that information! The horror!

Seriously, if a govt project is top secret classified and then declassified that is information worth knowing, for everybody. What harm does adding the term top secret do to other editors here that they would start an edit war over it?

The craziest thing of all is that Project Pandora redirects here! Why conflate it with Moscow Signal which has its own page? If you think the quote about sailor is cherry picked, you need to re-read WP:Cherrypicking. The sailors were unwittingly exposed to microwaves, and you have just described the definition of unwitting. What about my proposed edit doesn't match the source? --PaulGosar (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Pandora isn't the subject of this article. The rest of your post has already been addressed. VQuakr (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What about my proposed edit doesn't match the source? --PaulGosar (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

psychotronic weapons

this article was merged with psychotronic weapons. there is enough information about the real psychotronic weapons program (not conspiracy theories)to make psychotronic weapons a Subhead.

sources -

• https://www.rt.com/news/psychotronic-arms-soviet-weapon-379/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/science/sonic-attack-cuba-microwave.html
• https://www.rt.com/news/weapons-future-zombie-media-486/
• https://www.wired.com/2007/09/mind-reading/
• https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/revealed-the-soviet-unions-1-billion-psychotronic-arms-race-with-the-us-1b0b3d97df54

etc...PaulGosar (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Also,

• https://nypost.com/2013/12/28/the-soviet-union-spent-1-billion-on-mind-control-programs/
• https://gizmodo.com/soviets-spent-1-billion-on-unconventional-science-an-1489847752
• https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18331/russias-military-tech/

etc...PaulGosar (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

All "News of the Weird" and not serious journalism. Some even adopt a mocking tone about the subject.

• NYPost - circa 2013, references a Putin statement that is already covered in our article
• Gizmodo - says Soviets spent money on psychotronic research, already noted here and here
• Popular Mechanics - says Russian research into psychotronic weapons for mind control was "fruitless"

Basically I see nothing new in these links that could improve our article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering the title of most of these articles is the headline 'Soviets Spend $1 Billion on Psychtronic Weapons', and the 1 Billion dollars is not mentioned in our EH article, I would say that this numerical amount is remarkable, and due coverage is necessary. --PaulGosar (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, these are not new revelations. See Stargate_Project#1970s. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fits the scope of this article, must be added via due coverage. --PaulGosar (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it explicitly does not fit the scope of this article. This article is about a conspiracy theory; the sources provided do not provide a counterpoint relevant to this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please explain. --PaulGosar (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A government spending money on research programs is only relevant to the subject of this article if a source connects them. For example, we mention Project Pandora because the woo crowd thinks it's relevant to mind control via microwaves, and secondary sources have reported on the woo crowd's opinions. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For what purpose do 'psychotronics' and 'project pandora' redirect here if we have no information presented here about them, and other editors seem to be against adding information about these topics here? --PaulGosar (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out a number of times to you, the history of redirects, deletion, and merges in these articles is complicated. The existence of a redirect isn't a good indicator of whether something is on-topic for this article. We do already mention project pandora so it could be a reasonable redirect target - that doesn't mean there is consensus for expanding such tangential material. VQuakr (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Template

The first sentence of our article clearly describes EH as a conspiracy theory. I *believe* Wikipedia has a template designed for articles about conspiracy theories. I propose re-fitting the information of this page into the 'conspiracy theory' template. --PaulGosar (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you link that template? --mfb (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of a discussion held previously in the archives. My proposition then, and now, is that we restructure this page to look like the Chemtrails page. --PaulGosar (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Link. What's changed in the last month that makes you think that would be a better idea than it was in December? VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Explain your justification for not wanting to format this page similarly. --PaulGosar (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Reread the archive if you need a refresher. Then while you're at it, read WP:BLUDGEON. VQuakr (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

What makes chemtrails a start-class article vs what we have here? --PaulGosar (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe no one bothered to rate it for a while. I don't think taking the structure from the chemtrails article would notably improve this article. --mfb (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That's one take. When a user clicks on the 'Electronic Harassment' wikipedia entry what does he look for? For me, it breaks down like this.

• What is the conspiracy theory.
• What evidence is there to support the theory, as reported by reliable sources
• What evidence is there to debunk the theory, as reported by reliable sources
• Who are some notable people who have remarked on the theory.

The theory is that some agents are using Directed Energy Weapons on civilians covertly. Our current layout does a poor job of delineating these item clearly. That's why I propose a restructuring. I find the current layout lacks clarity. --PaulGosar (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we cover all those items pretty clearly in the current article, though there is certainly room for improvement. Breaking out "What evidence is there to support the theory" may not be possible to do per WP:GEVAL. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We have to write why people believe these things, as reported by RS. Some examples are listed in the Wired article that I added, before you reverted, which I specifically asked you not to. --PaulGosar (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If you wanted an edit reverted, you wouldn't have made it in the first place. Saying "please don't revert" doesn't make your edit inviolable. We have enough sources in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the body - there are limited situations in which we need any sourcing in the lede at all. VQuakr (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Setting 'evidence to support the theory aside', i would like clearly delineated sections for the other three bullet points. I would like all the information on this page to be sorted into these three sections. It seems we have an overwhelming about of information from psychologists about this topic. Let us at least put all of the psychologists opinions in one section, so that I dont have to read the full article to get to psychologists opinions. --PaulGosar (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dividing the views of mental health experts and conspiracy proponents into separate sections would not be an improvement. Wikipedia doesn't take a pro vs con approach to WP:FRINGE topics. If you are intent on such large scale structural and viewpoint changes to the article, the best advice I can give you is to sandbox a draft version, and then see if you can gain WP:CONSENSUS for it here on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would second the suggestion about drafting - maybe not the entire intended article text, but an outline might be helpful for others to get a better idea what you are proposing. I am having trouble picturing how what you are suggesting would be compliant with WP:FRINGE without being rather awkward. The article is only 21kB, so I don't think we have an overwhelming amount of information about anything. What's wrong with psychologists, anyways? VQuakr (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this the one you are talking about? Template:Conspiracy theories I think it would fit nicely there, in the health, energy, environment subsection. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll go ahead and update. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Microwave and EMF weapons

There is talk of "Criminal conspiracy theorists" who "heard voices" and were "delusional" or "Mentally insane". There is a long history of Psychotronic weapon usage dating back to the 70's. "CLASSIFIED" Operations involve SECRET information and weapons. It is VERY POSSIBLE that individuals are being electronically Harassed. I heard there is a "LIST". Certain types of people involved in certain Ideologies are placed on this list by a government agency, fusion center, local or state law enforcement, whatnot. They are monitored 24 hours a day 7 days a week with electronic surveillance. Their bodies have a unique ELECTRO MAGNETIC FREQUENCY that is theirs alone, the weapons are tuned to this frequency, affecting them alone. This is the future of warfare, to brush it off as madness is hookwinking yourself. It is what it is. Earl E. Smith (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not based on editor opinions but on reliable sources (WP:RS) and this page is not a forum for general discussion of the topic (WP:NOTFORUM). If you have reliable sources to cite they are welcome (WP:CITE). Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 05:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"unique electromagnetic frequency of a body" isn't a thing. Humans are not lasers. --mfb (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

Electronic harassment is relatively new communications technology "hearing voices" used on people without individuals consent, targeted individuals. The technology in question uses principal of Einstein spooky action at a distance and/or quantum entanglement, where magnetic moment have to be present.

see also

• Action at a distance
• quantum entanglement Hyperdarkenergy (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest that you learn something about science before you try to contribute to it? What you wrote makes no sense. --mfb (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove the protection. Article is not developing anymore. I wanted to add info about children 13 years old being harassed in Russia. 188.244.45.39 (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Make an edit request. But it sounds like the protection is still needed. --mfb (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I would log in better and there won't be any need for request to. If it sounds for you, it doesn't mean anything, unless you bring any argument. My argument - Article is not developing from January. Nobody contributes because of semi-protection. 188.244.45.39 (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC) (slip of the pen removed) 188.244.45.39 (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Before the semi-protection no IP contributed constructively, why should this change suddenly? Looks like there is simply no one who thinks the article needs to be changed and has a constructive change. --mfb (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add something to do with children in Russia, you’d have to provide a reliable source to cite it to, and it would have to be relevant to the article topic. You’d have to do those things even if the page was unprotected. -LuckyLouie (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Source where laywer interrogate victim mother and provides images of physical harm to her and her 13 years old child. As this article states electronic harassment as conspiracy theory and mother describes herself as targeted individual, so we can use this in "Experiences" part.

Support and Advocacy Communities

In this section, there was a direct quote which violates Wikipedia plagiarism and copy edit guidelines. I removed the direct quote and re-wrote the content to adhere to the guidelines. The same source was used and kept for reference.

DTL808 (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Brief quotes are not plagiarism on WP. See WP:MOSQUOTE. That said, your summary is more readable, so a good improvement. Thanks- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Additions to lead

I reverted the addition of argumentation in favor of the existence of CIA mind control in the lead. One source, the "Journal of Psycho-Social Studies", appears to be a play on the Association for Psychosocial Studies journal with a similar name. The other, an essay in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, does not discuss mind control. Its focus is ethics within the field of neuroscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, good revert. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

“See also” section

In light of recent IP and SPA activity, this section should be periodically checked for additions of articles like CIA surveillance programs and military weapons, etc. for which there is no connection to the topic, but which the conspiracy-minded wish to suggest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

JeBonSer [Targeted Individual (TI)] blocked user and accused of sockpuppetry

Pinging, EdJohnston, VQuakr, Mfb, ST47, Acroterion:

Unrelated to improvements to the article.

Before believing and accusing my account, those new user accounts are just repeating what I contribute in order to dupe the other editors that the owner of the account is the same. I'm a Targeted Individual (TI). You can easily spot that the first new created account (Basilvera (talk · contribs)) repeats what I previously contribute and he/she even paraphrased my edit summary. And the second new created account (Peleswift (talk · contribs)) is doing the same and my account was accused of sock puppetry for this account. How can I sacrifice my account to be stained if I knew the sock puppetry rules. I'm a long time editor. Only 3RR was my mistake because I didn't notice that I exceed four reversion because at that time, many editors editing on the Electronic harassment page and I can't easily noticed that my contributions had exceeded four reverts. The question here is that am I that so stupid? You can easily spot that these new user accounts are created by the groups who persecutes me. They made tactics to stain my account and to be easily suspected by the users, administrators and checkusers. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 20:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC) This duplicates a discussion you have already begun at User talk:EdJohnston#Ban evasion of recently blocked user, to which I have replied. If you are not satisfied with my answer there, please state your point on that page. It is conceivable that your sockpuppetry block was in error, but it has already expired so it shouldn't pose any further inconvenience. If you want an improved reputation, the way is open for you to improve it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To me it seems to be a crude mistake to restrict this topic to a conspiracy theory

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/new-human-rights-to-protect-against-mind-hacking-and-brain-data-theft-proposed

This article mentions many modern developments in the field of neuro-technology which correlate with reports of "targeted individuals". The scientists who dared to publish four new human rights in order to keep up with the technological developments are Swiss. Neither russian nor NATO-scientists like to comment on the topic. Why is that? I would suggest a re-evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt1703 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The article talks about neurosurgical procedures and implants, not controlling someone remotely with magically undetectable microwaves. None of the words "targeted", "individual", "electronic", or "harassment" appears in the article. VQuakr (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

@Anjan10 is attempting to add the line "although Mind Reading technology is in existence and can be harnessed accordingly,there is mind reading drone as well as prosthetic hand" to the lead of the article. (diff) I am starting a conversation here so there can be constructive discussion about this and whether it is an appropriate addition. I don't believe the addition is supported by the sources as Anjan10 claims, and even so I don't believe it is directly relevant to the subject of this article such that it merits inclusion in the lead. I also question whether "mind reading technology is in existence" is a verifiable statement anyway. –Erakura^(talk) 17:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is irrelevant as controlling these prosthetics is a voluntary process, with electrodes implanted or attached, the patients needing a lot of training, and so on. --mfb (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The mind control described by claimants is supposedly accomplished surreptitiously and at great distances. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources [7][8][9] do not mention or show any connection to "electronic harassment", failing WP:SYNTH right off the bat. Additionally, they concern controlling things with your mind, not someone else controlling your mind which is the topic at hand. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a site called Thoughtsurveillance.com in which Darell Kellam claims Mind reading is possible using Signals Intelligence saying all this is difficult is like not understanding adversaries reach.I think line should stay in Article as they are latest technological advancements,the technology does exist it doesn't need electrodes attached just a head band,they can make it as small as required.Let it stay in Article let people read the sources and if appreciated will add many more mind reading technology articles that describe latest technology it is needed in article as Electronic Harassment as it shows things can be controlled with mind but someone else cannot control anyone's mind and each case can be different.Anjan10 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We dont do bullshit. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, “there are patents for things that sound mind controllish to me” + “we can’t know what technology has been secretly implemented” is WP:OR, not to mention a series of paranoid assumptions. Wikipedia doesn’t indulge in that sort of thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like patent nonsense to me. –dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anjan10: Despite seeing numerous other editors here disagreeing with your change, you chose to make the change again anyway. Consider this your final warning: do not re-add this content again, or you may be blocked for edit warring. Thank you, –Erakura^(talk) 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

New source - inaccurate response reverting on 19 April 2020

I was just reverted two times by an active user and his/her reply was inaccurate. I added a new source published by the University of Essex (http://projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V9N1/WELSH.pdf).

Shall we discuss the inclusion of the source or is it "nonsense"? Why would my addition be nonsense considering it is a reliable source? 2A02:C7F:982E:7900:C8CF:16C2:F354:547A (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a twelve year old in-universe source written by Cheryl Welsh who is "founder and director of “Mind Justice,” a human rights group, law graduate, an activist and a targeted individual from Sacramento, California." -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That publication by a University is unfit to enter the page because The New York Times states she must be lunatic? I don't understand. She may be lunatic but that's information that should be weighted in, or not? 188.222.40.69 (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC) (I'm on a different IP)

Read WP:RS. I have no idea what NYT says on the subject. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC) -

I read the following which proves me right, and that's the first line. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). You should point me to what you want me consider. I can't read the whole page, or do I? 188.222.40.69 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You haven't had time to read the whole page. There is no rush. The point is that Cheryl is a true believer, and writes from that perspective, and is hence unreliable for anything other than what she believes. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A believer? I don't get it honestly. What's the exact piece of the wikipedia guidelines you are referring to? What rule is that you are trying to have me confront? Because I don't understand how you can debate such a well written article and published by a University is less reliable than newspapers.. should be the other way. 188.222.40.69 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A "true believer". She claims to be a "targetted individual". We cannot use anything she writes as a reliable source for anything other than what she believes. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are saying, would you belive me? Can you reformulate your point for me please? What's the relation between your second and your third statement? In other words.. (or possibly pointing me to the already written guidelines). 188.222.40.69 (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The claim that people are victims of secret government mind control is classic WP:FRINGE as well as a WP:REDFLAG no matter what the individual source is, so we are not obligated to be “neutral”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I just finished reading the whole page properly. You guys actually do have some credit, both of you. Because firstly the NYT I didn't know neither what it really said, I do now. Secondly, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG apply and as such, neutrality is supposed to be weighted differently. I will propose a deal here, because the introduction of this peer-reviewed academic paper deserves to be given at least a little bit of weight.. Actually, the testing of neurological weapons is reported by both the first two sources (the WP and the NYT), so this new source is redundant in a way. I will only attempt this edit once obviously.

I understand that this addition shifts some slight weight in favour of the plausability of the delusions but at the same time it is, in my opinion, balanced information that improves the page in a due manner, all considered. Say it doesn't.. And I can obviously elaborate further if needed, but hopefully this is enough. 188.222.40.69 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Publication in a peer reviewed journal does not guarantee inclusion in the encyclopedia. The problem is that Welsh's is not "a significant minority view". If it were, it would be discussed in other academic sources, and there would be a fair amount of criticism and analysis of it. Lack of those indicates it's not significant or notable enough for wikipedia to give any weight to. Also I notice your edits attempt to use Welch as a source for things that are already included in the article, such as what people believe and why they believe it. We simply don't need an additional source for those things, especially one which ultimately endorses a conclusion that there is a conspiracy to control people's minds with covert technology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I detect some heavy form of preconceived prejudice on your part. Your response is mostly unsatisfying. I decided I won't explain myself any further, because it clearly is a waste of time. If you (or your friend) happen to wake up from letargy I may be back. Suffice to say, the NYT states "designed to drive a person crazy" and yet you are afraid of removing some little weight from the doctors and give it to the plausability of the conspiracy. That's, nonsense. 188.222.40.69 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Bye. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed outline 2019

I propose that this article currently called "electronic harassment" have this outline:

1. Description of the phenomena
   1. define the concept
   2. list common characteristics
2. Sociology / news / journalism
   1. summarize famous cases
   2. a common situation is lack of real-world evidence - comment on this
3. Social work
   1. present perspective of counselor who supports people experiencing this
   2. describe when someone should go for non-medical social / psychological treatment and what they should expect
4. medical perspective
   1. summarize the general medical condition, maybe persecutory delusion
   2. summarize the medical journal reports on how pharma treatment, like anti-psychotic drugs, change the situation
5. technology
   1. link out to other Wikipedia articles about cyberstalking, which obviously exists
   2. link to Wikipedia articles about the state of technology for tracking, which obviously exists

This article could be much friendlier to provide information for a few different audiences, including people who experience this, their families, counselors and support groups, medical professionals, and people who want an overview of the technology which actually exists for tracking or harassment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: this article has much room for improvement, and I would welcome a rewrite. But the subject of this article is electronic harassment, aka psychotronic torture - not cyberstalking (which we already appropriately link to in a hat note). So I think the proposed "technology" section could be contentious. Charge ahead on the rest, though! VQuakr (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I linked a new 2020 Sheridan academic article below. I am thinking that there should be two articles here: one should be about gang stalking and targeted individuals, which is a topic unrelated to any particular technology; and the other should be electronic harassment, which itself could be split into multiple sub-articles because it refers to multiple unrelated technologies including radio waves, lasers, conventional social media apps, cyberstalking, and the compromise of online user accounts. The relationship between these two concepts is that gang stalking is an attack on targeted individuals, so those concepts are paired. Usually, but not always, targeted individuals report that the gang stalking activity includes the use of any or all electronic harassment technologies. These are not a topics which I want to develop at this time, but I did want to share that new source that I found. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 source - The Phenomenology of Group Stalking ('Gang-Stalking')

• Sheridan, L; James, DV; Roth, J (6 April 2020). "The Phenomenology of Group Stalking ('Gang-Stalking'): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experiences". International journal of environmental research and public health. 17 (7). doi:10.3390/ijerph17072506. PMID 32268595.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Researcher Lorraine Sheridan seems to get attention as the mainstream academic commentator on this topic. I put her Scholia profile here, but she also is in The New York Times article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As discussed in the section above, this is a separate topic and covered in other articles. --mfb (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Electronic harassment is a phenomenon not a conspiracy theory.

I have been trying to expose this for years, there are many reliable sources about it listed in:

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/257332887/#257335203

(this place is moderated by very questionable people who will derail this using typical pilpul)

97.80.76.76 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

please provide a reliable source (Reliable means one that does not wear tin foil hats) for your proposed edit. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There (((you))) go:

https://cyber-torture.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.206.119.155 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS, and your inclusion of triple parentheses around the word "you" is noted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous edit: I can confirm that it is indeed a real phenomenon. There's nothing tinfoil hat about it because I've lived it. Many people are effected they just don't talk about it because if they do bad things happen, especially since it's the government doing this. People are communicating with the V2K or something, and maybe there is nanotechnology. It sounds like fiction but you have to listen at some point, when all these people have experiences. I am actually one of the few people who know about the group without joining, they make a big deal about me. It is true that is all I have to say. IT. IS. TRUE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:D60:1691:C4C2:AF43:EEB5:7EE4 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

An edit on a Wikipedia talk page is not a reliable source either. If it would be real then there would be well-documented cases, not just anecdotes. No matter how obscure, you can find people convinced that it exists, that's why anecdotes are not reliable. --mfb (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum

1. Individuals who claim to experience this call themselves "targeted individuals" (TIs), according to the article. 2. No one should dispute that some people in some situations are picked on, harassed, or bullied, by different gangs or groups, often online or electronically as well as in real life, by various means. 3. The article is locked and protected, full of silly conspiracy theories, with nothing of value to offer victims of electonic harassment or other stalking crimes, which undeniably do take place and need to be reported on. justinacolmena (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Stalking is a different subject than this article, which is about the conspiracy theory. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorists in US State Department

Can we add a paragraph on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome, or is that too fringe or not electronic harassment?

"During the Cold War, the U.S. accused Russia of directing a microwave signal at the American embassy in Moscow, and a 2014 NSA report raised suspicions that Russia used an energy weapon to "bathe a target’s living quarters in microwaves", which caused nervous system damage. The purported targets in the 2016-2018 events include undercover CIA agents who were working on ways to counter Russian covert operations." Good day1 (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not electronic harassment. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The article defines electronic harassment as "a conspiracy theory that government agents make use of electromagnetic radiation [to] affect people's bodies, and harass people." The main Havana Syndrome hypotheses are all textbook electronic harassment. Here are more links if you don't believe this is occurring, although it sounds like many have already made up their mind:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/550898-us-investigating-possible-havana-syndrome-attack-near-white-house

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/us/politics/cia-havana-syndrome-mystery.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/politics/state-department-havana-syndrome-coordinator/index.html

There are dozens more well-sourced articles that verify this "conspiracy theory" is happening. Peace.

Good day1 (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about mind control delusions, not electronic warfare attacks by one nation state on another. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response Louie. It should be noted that this article might be easily confused with electronic warfare, since we are talking about the exact same subject matter. Actually, if the governments of the world were not using the means at their disposal for the sake of order and national security (including electronic), there are a whole lot of (sick) lawyers who might argue it would be a dereliction of duty. I see both sides. Let's just make sure we're not gaslighting real victims like Polymeropoulos et al here. Thanks again.Good day1 (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Electronic warfare is about radar jamming, not about firing alleged energy weapons at individuals. - MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Directed-energy weapon. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The article defines electronic harassment as "a conspiracy theory that government agents make use of electromagnetic radiation [to] affect people's bodies, and harass people." That is categorically not how the article defines EC. Why would you lie like that, knowing we could immediately check the truth of it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It is an undisputed fact that harassment by electronic means occurs. It's being reported everywhere, including Washington DC. Is anyone disputing this?Good day1 (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Not everything that uses electromagnetic waves is electronic harassment. Sending harassing text messages uses electromagnetic waves, too, but it's clearly not within the scope of this article. --mfb (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm outnumbered here so I'll leave you with this and let you get the last word: Go over to the UFO's page and be the last arguers over there: Wikipedia's UFO page still calls UFO's a fringe conspiracy theory even though the Pentagon now fully admits to MANY MANY legitimate UFO sightings! This Electronic Harassment page will go the way of the UFO page: "Proven" conspiracy theory. I don't believe that either of these was a true conspiracy because I don't generally believe there was *malevolent* intent on behalf of the government (a requirement for a "conspiracy"). Reasonable people may disagree. Peace be with you allGood day1 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This Electronic Harassment page will go the way of the UFO page: "Proven" conspiracy theory. If it isn't that already, then we're doing something seriously wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

UFOs were never fringe. It just means you don't know what an object is. No UFOs would mean you can perfectly identify every object every time, which would be absurd. Aliens in UFOs are fringe. --mfb (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious. What exactly do you think this comment added to the discussion? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Good day1 doesn't seem to understand what being fringe means, so I explained it for the UFO example they mentioned. --mfb (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't parse it correctly, so I apologize if my question seemed rude. I've corrected the indenting of our comments, since Goodday's got fixed, leaving ours out of whack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended WP:SOAPBOXing

As a victim of this, I request the review of this material. It is not a conspiracy and it affects many people. 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. This research quotes many different programs from the government to create direct energy weapons that you can verify online: https://www.g-casa.com/conferences/shanghai/paper_pdf/Liu-mindcontrol.pdf The author here details many cases of electronic harassment in the later half of this journal. This was written by a journalist in Russia that goes into very specific details that again you can verify with those who build satellite technologies: The slavery.org page is a repost. Not the original author. You can find his original article online. http://www.slavery.org.uk/SatSurvArticle.htm There has been a lot of coverage over this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mTj8hBxCqj0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8KG8R0A8plg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpI_0m-BkI Again, I am currently dealing with this, and the experience is one of the most gruesome forms or harassment and torture. It is a complete violation of human rights and no one is going to start taking this seriously and building laws around this, so that people can take their cases to court, until pages like this talk about this as a real thing. I've never edited a wikipedia page, I am writing this because this is extremely important, and describing this as a conspiracy is misinformation. If you really want to help,please listen to the many people trying to edit this page. I do not identify with any right wing conspiracies, I have been a supporter of civil rights and many ideas of the liberal party, so I hope you will understand that I am writing this because this is a global human rights issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariecyber (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 May 2021 (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. CNN Article 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. Attached is an article about electronic harassment that is not a "Fringe Theory" this has been affecting people for years. Why would anyone lie about this. You cannot call yourself a trusted news source if you are not willing to look. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/us-investigates-second-case-mystery-syndrome-white-house/index.html Electronic harassment (magic voices) is a fringe theory. Directed energy weapons and Havana syndrome are not fringe topics; those subjects have their own articles. The CNN article doesn't mention EH. WP is not a news source. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC) It never ceases to amaze me that the flood of IPs and SPAs all claiming to suffer from EH are apparently unaware of what EH actually is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Correction: You cannot call yourself a trusted "information" source. -- That is what I meant "Magic Voices" I'm guessing is what you mean when you say people are hearing voices. Voice to skull technology is widely documented. You can easily research this topic with various accredited sources to support that this is very possible to do. Electronic Harassment is the topic explaining the many smaller ones including but not limited to directed energy weapons, voice to skull technology,satellite surveillance used to harass individuals and many other extremely harmful techniques. Attached is a document from the United Nations Human Rights Office of High Commissioner talking about this term. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Torture/Call/Individuals/Harrassmenttechniques.pdf People,governments and private criminals, have been using these techniques for years to torture and harassment innocent people and they have no way of even beginning to seek justice if the greater law and justice community are not informed. I have used wikipedia all my life. It has helped me through studying from grade school to grad school. When you look up this term on google, wikipedia is the first article that pops up and it labels this as a conspiracy theory. Do you know how damaging that is for victims? I'm guessing if you work for this organization its because you believe in wikipedia's mission to inform the public freely and accurately. This is what this organization is suppose to represent. This is real, and as this technology becomes more commercialized, smaller and cheaper more everyday people are going to be affected. This document and many other information sources are the first step to creating safe guards around this enormous abuse. Do the right thing and inform. Moderators of this topic are clearly trying to suppress this and are not interested in learning or informing the public about this Based on your complete lack of response to anything I said it is clear that you have no interest in doing the right thing. You clearly are not neutral or even curious about these claims but working to suppress this topic completely. How can this organization not screen people like this out. The people in this talk have made many substantial claims supported by a lot of documentation. I think you as well as any generally intelligent citizen will know that there are a lot of things that the media is not going to report. This political environment should be enough to teach you that this is not a new phenomenon. However, this is what we can do. Report the science. We know some things are proven capabilities. Mind reading is basically being commercialized at this point. Direct energy weapons, reported right now and developed my the military. Satellite capabilities, again you can ask manufacturers what satellites are capable of doing (if you cared to get this right). Do we have a specific case to point to that talks about all these things happening, probably not. But we can talk about the fact that there is science out there that proves all of this is very possible. You can talk about this term as something that is POSSIBLE and give examples of people who have claimed this. There is nothing wrong with saying there is not widespread reporting on this. That does not prevent this topic from being discussed on this medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:4400:F8D0:E125:E48F:AB46:E28A (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC) The topic (including various claims by believers) is discussed extensively in the existing article. What you're asking for (making connections between various unrelated technologies and fringe rumors to claim mind control is "possible") goes against the encyclopedia's established policies and guidelines, the most relevant of which is WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikipedia's role isn't to promote attention for speculations and theories that aren't being given attention in reliable sources. We can only summarize the current scholarship on any given topic. In other words, the encyclopedia doesn't lead, it follows. So your passion is better directed at convincing those sources that what you claim is true. Continued WP:SOAPBOXing on article Talk pages is disruptive and could lead to a block or ban. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2021 (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. Okay, I understand what you are trying to claim. To you, this is still an unproved theory. For many people here and I'm sure anybody who actually takes the time to research this the evidence is very clearly out there. So I guess the question is what is evidence to you? Your policies and guidelines are very vague, saying that a lot of this is "common sense", "community census". You cannot have both. I don't need to convince people, the people who are doing this know very well that this is happening, what is not there is information for everyday people which you are suppose to protect. If there was research performed explaining, for example, voice to skull capabilities and you could see online that many people put that under the umbrella of electronic harassment would you include that in this article? The term "conspiracy" is really the biggest problem with this page. You cannot bucket everything under electronic harassment as a conspiracy when there are very large pieces like energy weapons that are proven to exist. This is not just about passion, this is about accurate definitions and information. You are misinforming and its hurting a lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:4400:F8D0:E125:E48F:AB46:E28A (talk • contribs) No, energy weapons (which obviously exist) are a different topic with their own article. The relevant guideline is WP:FRINGE; it is very clear that we label fringe theories accurately. The reliable sources say that people who hear voices are delusional, so that is what we report. If reliable sources started reporting otherwise we would report that, but Wikipedia follows what the sources say; we don't lead on breaking the news. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC) They are not different. That is false. They are under the umbrella of electronic harassment. Who are your "reliable sources" that told you that? This is not news, this is information. I hope you understand the difference. Scholarship, science, and evidence is not news. You are not breaking news. This has nothing to do with the news. You are citing studies that show that these capabilities exist. If you don't want to report on the abuse cases I can understand that, but to say that electronic harassment itself does not exist is false. That is misinformation. What is it going to take for you to put these various academic sources of electronic harassment capabilities on this page because its important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:4400:F8D0:E125:E48F:AB46:E28A (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Seriously guys, please stop feeding the trolls and just revert them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not?

Why can't this be improved upon? Ntbittinger (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly ways the article can be improved, but posting random conspiracy theories isn't going to do that. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not random accusations. --mfb (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit of yours to this page which was reverted claimed that certain people were being mind-controlled to commit crimes. This is a truly extraordinary claim, which would require rock-solid evidence to support it, but you provided no evidence beyond your mere assertion.

(edit conflict)Without high quality sources explicitly stating that these people were, in fact, mind controlled into committing their crimes, we will not even discuss adding such material to this article.

Even with such sourcing, you will need to find further sourcing establishing that this phenomenon is actually real (a necessary prerequisite to us considering the sources mentioned previously to be reliable) in order for the ensuing discussion to conclude that this is something we can add without running afoul of our policies on fringe theories and the neutral point of view.

Note that continued posting to this talk page to ask for the inclusion of claims for which you do not provide reliable sources will be considered disruptive, and will likely result (at best) in your edits being reverted.

If you have questions, I will endeavor to answer them for you, but do not take my response here as an invitation for you to repeat your request without sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment to Wikipedia Article "Electronic Harassment"

This is not a conspiracy theory. This article is in need of updating. It is slowly but surely becoming common knowledge that microwaves are used to track and harass individuals. Microwaves have been used in RADAR for a long time. The only question is who all is behind it. The Department of Defense (DOD) is well aware of this type of weapon, which has been around for a long while, but because it is now being used more and more often and in more and more settings it is slowly being outed. The DOD has solicited for a "Wearable Radio Frequency Weapon Exposure Detector". The RFP closed on March 4, 2021: https://www.sbir.gov/node/1841633. The solicitation states that "The spectrum of interest includes IEEE UHF through Ka bands." This is the lower frequency portion of the microwave spectrum. UHF through Ka bands include frequencies 300 MHz (100cm) to 40 GHz (0.75 cm). UHF, at one time called the P band, is right below the L band. It is important to educate the general public about this weapon. It is a weapon, as is a handgun or a rifle or a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon. It is just a different type of weapon. Its mode of doing harm is not kinetic, nuclear, chemical or biological. Its mode is 'directed energy' which interacts with the body's cells and can change them. The changes can be noticed immediately or they can be subtle enough to go undetected for years. Because the changes can be subtle the DOD needs a way to detect exposure; a bullet wound, after all, is obvious. And because of increasing miniaturization, more and more groups or even individuals will gain access to this weapon. Various Governments have studied the effects of microwaves on the body for a long time, at least since after World War II and consider all the public domain microwave applications such as RADAR; directional sound as exhibited by Audio Spotlight products; Active Denial Service; detection of individuals by heart signature from a distance of at least 200 meters, 'Jetson' is one such product though I don't know what frequency it uses, but it is certainly EMF; medical applications of microwaves. Do not discount its use as a weapon, including as a weapon of harassment. It is currently especially suited to be such a weapon since it can be very difficult to detect with current monitors and persons being affected may at first not be believed. If the DOD already had a way to detect it reliably, they likely wouldn't be soliciting for a device that does. Please work to determine who the perpetrators are by first acknowledging that this is indeed very possible. This a topic not to be dismissed.Zalbicolis (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not 'work to determine perpetrators'. And nor does it base article content on a confused mish-mash of multiple different topics. I suggest that you first read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines used to determine article content (starting with WP:RS, and WP:OR), and then, if you have a specific proposal regarding article content directly relevant to the stated topic of this article and directly citing published reliable sources, you post it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, this particular article seems to get an amount of attention from those who believe it which is wildly out of proportion to other conspiracy theory related articles. I'm wondering if there's something we should do to help deal with this, like an FAQ or a big red "DON"T BOTHER ASKING US TO CLAIM IT'S TRUE" edit notice on the talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda has boxes that might be interesting. That was hit worse. --mfb (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I actually quite like the language there, though I'd prefer a more "look at me before you start typing!" color scheme. Please note that due to ongoing disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to our characterization of this as a conspiracy theory in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also add something reminding these poor souls that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM or a place to share their personal experiences. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states: 'Multiple medical professionals have evaluated that these experiences are hallucinations, the result of delusional disorders, or psychosis.' A counterpoint is in a March 2, 2021 Forbes article titled, "The Pentagon Fears That Deadly Microwave Weapons Are Undetectable" which states: 'When U.S. diplomats began mysteriously falling ill in Havana in 2016, scientists were perplexed by the cause. Until they realized that the cause was probably a microwave weapon that bathed the target in deadly radiation.' A recent DOD solicitation for a "Wearable Radio Frequency Weapon Exposure Detector" is at: . I'm not asking you to actually find the perpetrators. I'm asking you to acknowledge in your article that credible sources acknowledge that electronic harassment occurs and that the likely mechanism is directed microwaves with frequencies likely in the UHF through Ka bands. Another source is "The Spy in Moscow Station" by Eric Haseltine. He authored a June 23, 2021 Psychology Today article titled "Solving the Mystery of Havana Syndrome" . There is a 30 minute podcast titled "Eric Haseltine on his book The Spy in Moscow Station" on YouTube. I tried to add the link, but Talk wouldn't allow it. I'm new to Wikipedia talk, but this is such an important topic, I feel I need to learn it and say something. Thank you.Zalbicolis (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you start by reading the Wikipedia article, since it isn't about what allegedly went on in Havana. The article isn't about possible uses of microwaves as weapons, it is about a specific conspiracy theory which claims that microwaves are being used to put voices in peoples heads. People were making claims about advanced technology being used for this purpose long before microwaves were a thing: see On the Origin of the "Influencing Machine" in Schizophrenia, which was published in 1919. Or see the account of the 'Air Loom' in the James Tilly Matthews article. Earlier generations would have blamed the Devil, or witchcraft. Some still do. Looking for external explanations for the weird things going on in their heads. Paranoia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

okay, then I will address the sound specifically. Sometimes there are underlying truths to conspiracy theories. Microwaves can be used to listen in on conversations from a distance. There was an article written in 2005 in the Electronic Engineering Times with the title "Eavesdropping using microwaves". It states: "Figure 1 Microwaves are reflected off an indivdual to intercept speech through barriers like walls and doors. Figure 2 Microwaves are reflected off an object to intercept speech through barriers like walls and doors. Refelected RF is modulated by vibrations in the object making the extraction of sound practical. Figure 3 A complete sound interception system is surprisingly simple. Major components are readily available off the shelf." You absolutely can use microwaves to obtain sound from a distance. One hears through the cochlea of each ear, not in the head. The head has no way of transferring sounds to the brain where the sounds are then interpreted. This is where things get muddled. I know that people have mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, where people hear voices in their head. I have no doubt about that. But, there are also people who have no mental illness that hear real voices, that are external to them, from a distance, transmitted to their cochleas. The technology exists to do this. You can look at products by Holosonics Audio Spotlight and Genasys, though they use ultrasound, not microwaves. . I think both aspects need to be presented. Not everyone who hears sounds when they wouldn't expect to is mentally ill. There are many YouTube videos that show the use of directed sound, one is a Ted Talk given by inventor Woody Norris published to YouTube in January 2009 with the title, "Woody Norris: Supersonic Sound and other Inventions". I know targeted individuals use the term Voice to Skull, but I don't think it is a helpful term because it conjures up thoughts like witchcraft. This technology is not witchcraft, it actually exists.Zalbicolis (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again you are going wildly off-topic. This article isn't about detecting sounds using microwaves. And nor is it about any 'directed sound' technology not using microwave transmission. THIS IS NOT A FORUM and unless you have specific proposals for changes to the article, directly based on sources meeting Wikipedia reliability policies, there is nothing further to be said. Wikipedia policies are not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References

About Conspiracy

It s not a conspiracy but it s chaining with a false social game everyone in a féodal pyramid where biohackers think they help but target 4 their suvereign power. All chemical Brothers are a reference to that game. Biohackers are making a féodal structure power and new justice 4 all. I ve been approached 2 work on eml techno. It exists since 20 years. Proofs have been destroyed from official sources.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Not written by -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Electromagnetic attack

I suggest to add in subchapter "See also" a reference to Wikipedia article "Electromagnetic attack". This article icludes the evidence of reality of illegal electronic attack not by govertnment but by bad individuals and leads us to more broad approach then conspirace theory. --98.116.230.131 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we aren't going to add a misleading link to an article on another subject entirely (cryptography via detection of EMR) just to give bogus credibility to a delusional conspiracy theory about people having thoughts transmitted into their heads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment is a Real War Crime

DHS via WA State Fusion Center in 2017 disclosed the electronic harassment of innocent civilians at the Portland waterfront: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/washington-54/antifa-and-white-supremacist-groups-fusion-center-42794/#files Click the EM effects on human body folder.

The UN calls the phenomena "cybertorture." https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban

See the UN's inputs received describing electronic harassment of targets: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/CallGA75.aspx Medicineowl (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Change entire article characterizing legit phenomena as "conspiracy theory" (X) to reflect the evidences I presented (Y).

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Change X "Electronic harassment, electromagnetic torture, or psychotronic torture is a conspiracy theory that government agents make use of electromagnetic radiation (such as the microwave auditory effect), radar, and surveillance techniques to transmit sounds and thoughts into people's heads, affect people's bodies, and harass people.[1][2]"

To Y "Electronic harassment, electromagnetic torture, or psychotronic torture is a globally reported phenomena that government agents make use of electromagnetic radiation (such as the microwave auditory effect), radar, and surveillance techniques to transmit sounds and thoughts into people's heads, affect people's bodies, and harass people. (https://www.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/09/government_harassing_us_citize.html)

The UN calls the phenomena "cybertorture" (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban) and published documents detailing the threat in 2020. (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/CallGA75.aspx) https://cyber-torture.com/

In 2017, WA State Fusion Center disclosed the electronic harassment of civilians at an event at the Portland, OR waterfront. See the EM effects on human body zip folder.(https://www.muckrock.com/foi/washington-54/antifa-and-white-supremacist-groups-fusion-center-42794/#files)"

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The change you want to make (saying there is secret government mind control) would need WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources — not the mishmash of misinterpreted documents and petitions from delusional people you have provided. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think WA State Fusion Center and the UN are legit enough sources to include here and they do debunk those labelling the legit phenomena "delusional" "conspiracy theory." I personally attended the Portland event WA Fusion disclosed. It was a cybertorture disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicineowl (talk • contribs) 16:56, September 3, 2021 (UTC)

Neither source has anything to do with the subject of this article. Cyberbullying and so on are discussed in other articles. They are real, of course, but not the topic here. --mfb (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually the UN's term "cybertorture" is not cyberbullying as it describes no touch electronic weapons torture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicineowl (talk • contribs)

Discussion of real-life phenomena is at other articles, such as Havana syndrome. This article is about the conspiracy theory that the government uses some unknown technology to make every day people hear voices in their heads. The sources you have presented do not establish that that has actually happened. Stop turning the requested edit template on, it is clear that consensus is against your suggestions. They are not going to happen until you get agreement from other editors. - MrOllie (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually all my citations reveal the real electronic weapons torture of civilians. Have y'all looked at the cited UN call for submissions or the WA Fusion Disclosure, click the EM effects on human body folder. Now, you're just not looking at the evidences.

Wikipedia doesn’t evaluate evidence or do investigative journalism, we only summarize a topic in proportion to the weight given to it in reliable sources. If the government were using some unknown technology to make every day people hear voices in their heads, it would be the biggest story of the century and extensively covered in mainstream news and science journals. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're waiting for CNN to confirm this for you then you don't understand the Information War. This DHS disclosure was on Drudge Report when it came out with a headline about mind control. It's real. Havana Syndrome, which you admit is real, happens to involve a wireless weapons package similar to the systems deployed on civilians at the PDX waterfront, which DHS discloses as real, as I've referenced. My official, reliable sources here do substantiate the claims of myself and other TI's that this is a real war crimes phenomena. Don't dismiss these sources just because you can't handle that DHS admits to "reading and broadcasting thoughts" etc. The UN agrees this is real; see their inputs received at the link provided, including "electromagnetic torture" "mind control technology," etc. You guys have still not at all dealt with the material provided which proves the framing of this article is completely and irresponsibly wrong. Meanwhile, targets do die as long as we lose the Information War in this very space. Do due diligence; look at what I am citing. UN, DHS, and Portland's local newspaper all describe the phenomena as real. Medicineowl (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t indulge such debunked nuttery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, think progress doesn't offer evidence for their claim that "Another email released to ThinkProgress in response to its FOIA request makes it clear the Fusion Center didn’t intend to release these conspiratorial documents to Waltman." You are just taking their word for that. As someone who literally attended the event, I know these documents were intentionally included so as to describe and disclose real field activity that was actually happening. (I was there.)

Associating the story with Alex Jones and assuring the public that it was all a mistake by the poor, overworked, A Whole Entire Fusion Center Intelligence Team, might make sense if you're framing the release for disinfo. Id like to see the email they reference and I'll ask them for it you should know that cyber weapons were deployed on myself and other civilians at this event. Not debunked. Medicineowl (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience DS

I was considering adding a DS notice on this page. Do other editors agree that this article is covered under the pseudoscience arbitration case? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It is. I have added a DS notice to the user's page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Mark Beck

After reviewing the sources for this diff, the claims of former spy Beck may be a better fit at Directed-energy weapon. Attacks on agents of one nation by another nation are a form of electronic warfare. This article is about the conspiracy theory that ordinary people are being victimized by their own governments. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the sources refer to his claims as EH. Agreed that it does not belong here. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

South African

please change ((South African)) to ((South Africa))n 2601:541:4580:8500:A124:9C0:36AE:2295 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Eevee01^(talk) 17:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Havana Syndrome" microwave beam theories?

It falls perfectly in line with the set of symptoms and the theories of causes described. It seems like a simple rebranding if electronic harassment to apply to US diplomatic staff. Real or otherwise, I think it belongs in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.249.230 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about people who claim to hear voices, which is not a feature of Havana Syndrome. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Federal court Cases

Example: Hale v. FCC https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170623d27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:14D4:8240:E453:285:7020:4581 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So, "the speculative and frivolous nature of the case makes clear that the defects in plaintiff's Complaint are incurable... dismissed with prejudice". We don't use primary-source court case material for content, and if we did, this bit of nonsense wouldn't confirm anything that the article doesn't already say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerning: HIPAA Violations

The main topic of this article has been conducively associated with referencing towards: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act.

Please make any necessary edits for internationalization and localization, citations and be sure to observe Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines policies. Habatchii (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea at all what you want. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Cyber Torture

see Electronic harassment Buzzword2022 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

British case

If the IP means this case: https://www.ithinkdiff.com/airtag-abuser-jailed-for-stalking-girlfriend/ , that is not "electronic harassment" in the meaning of this article, it is simply about getting her real-time location through an AirTag.

And stealthily filming naked college students isn't "electronic harassment" either.

Oh, yeah, the Metaverse... But that does not count as real gang rape, does it? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Voice of God Weapon/V2K/Gangstalking

This is Real and you need to do More Research - Read Dr. Duncan's books How to Tame a Demon and Project Soul Catcher. 136.34.161.105 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Targeted Justice of Houston Texas Filed a Lawsuit on January 11th Because of this Human Rights Violation. Research this court case and see that the sources are FBI whistleblowers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.34.161.105 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I googled the book and found it on Amazon. I must say it was rather depressing to see so many other books of its ilk being marketed. That there is a small, but increasing number of people who believe in these paranoid fantasies is depressing. WP:TALK content: the sources you suggest don't meet Wikipedia's reliable source policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It should perhaps be noted that one doesn't necessarily have to actually believe that paranoid conspiracy-drek is real in order to make money from publishing a book (or newspaper, or TV 'news' broadcast) claiming that it is. A further reason (if we needed one, though we don't) why we shouldn't use such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

As a college graduate, I must point out that Wikipedia is currently not, and has never been considered a reliable source in academic writing. In fact, it is completely inadmissible. So I’m not sure what your point is. Perhaps you could begin your endeavor to become credible by remaining objective in your reporting. 2600:1012:B1A9:972D:DD1:C91C:FDD1:BF24 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd have hoped that most college graduates would understand that even a source that expressly states that its content should not be relied on (see Wikipedia:General disclaimer), can improve what limited credibility its content holds by discriminating between possible sources. Feel free to start your own online encyclopaedia that doesn't if you like, and see what the academic community has to say regarding the reliability and objectivity of your new endeavour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make money, and I can 110 percent tell you it's real. I won't go into details on how and why, but this is very very real, and is happening world wide by different entities. 174.214.48.175 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you first hand its real, as real as it gets. All these people are not paranoid and dreaming this. I have found ,upon my amazment, these type tactics to be very real. The mistake most T.Is make- is believing the voices they hear. Its all fiction, usex for many different reasons to many different people. This is ongoing all over the world.We live in an age of information and that info is being used in a harmful way. This will all be full frontal in the near future but Im curious how many more lives will be impacted before it is put to a stop.It has truly changed me, and if I wasnt very strong willed, I would have fell into the trap. Its the daily doses of Directed Energy Weapons, voices of fake people, etc. That I have gotten used to. Our Country, Our Constitution wasnt built on the principles of this devils work they do. 174.214.48.175 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:NOTFORUM. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Please include that this is not only a 'conspiracy theory' as California state passed a law publicizing their military equipment inventories which are obtained by the same program that militarized law enforcement in EVERY state ( LESO 1033). Microwave weapons are found listed on category line number 13 of these equipments. After George Floyd, and other exemplary instances of police brutality I think it would be in the bag interest of the freedom to be informed if citizens were aware how plausible these claims are. I appreciate any attention to detail in this matter. Another source is a $1.3 billion dollar lawsuit filed in 2023 by Targeted Justice, LLC on behalf of Targeted Individuals registered with their lawsuit. 172.59.88.14 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Language Source

The origin or history of terminology used by TIs is unclear and not documented in the article. Can someone do a little research? 58.97.230.91 (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with you, so I won’t. Why don’t you try? Roxy the dog 05:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you should start here: www.rebelrevolver.com/forum 75.0.6.213 (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)