Talk:Arthur Firstenberg/Archive 1

No workplaces without computers any more????
Firstenberg writes: "Because there are virtually no workplaces without computers any more, I have not held a job since 1990."

Am I missing something? There are tons of workplaces that don't involve computers. They almost assuredly all involve more manual labor (e.g. plumbers, office cleaning crews, chef, etc.) than jobs that do involve computers and many probably involve working outside (e.g. construction jobs, park maintenance, lifeguarding, etc.)  Lawyer2b (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Office cleaning crews? When's the last time you saw an office with no computer? Water meters now have digital radio telemetry. Restaurants use computerized order systems. Parks, beaches and construction sites all have Wi-Fi. Physicsjock (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My workplace has no computer, in neither the main store nor the two branches; we do everything by hand. And many restaurants don't use them. Construction sites have wifi? Really? Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Status as of 2004; WHO Head
I've added back in content as to Firstenberg's status as of 2004, which was inadvertently deleted in a previous edit. I think it indicates the author's plight, in his own words, and belongs in the article. If his status has since changed (which could be the reason for the delete), we should add a new reference to support that assertion. The juxtaposition of former WHO head Gro Harland Brundtland's position as to electromagnetic hypersensitivity next to the official WHO reference is an example of WP:UNDUE (her opinion does not count for more just because she is high profile, it's still just one person's opinion) and an attempt to call into question the WHO's position in an unscientific way … and is anyway a discussion for the electromagnetic hypersensitivity article.--papageno (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on his lawsuit and the New Mexican article he certainly owned a home as of 2009. Whether he is effectively homeless, due to being unable to reside in his home without medical symptoms is another question.

Regarding the WHO, their position also belongs in the article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as they have said nothing about his case (and it would be unscientific for them to do so unless they tested him). Physicsjock (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" "Libel" and warning templates
I've reverted this edit, which has the summary "Cleaned up vandalism. Removed libelous content." Clearly, none of the changes reverted (again) by Bearguardian are vandalism. I don't see how any of them can be considered libelous, either, although my guess is that s/he is referring to the intro saying the subject is a 'self-proclaimed' expert on an 'alleged' phenomena (i.e., electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which medical science agrees does not exist.) Further, I feel Bearguardian's preferred wording of the paragraph on the subject's dispute with his neighbor over her right to use her laptop and cell phone in her own home has a clear POV in favor of the subject. The re-adding of the vandalism warning template is just puzzling. Bearguardian, would you care to discuss your changes? -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 14:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with The ed17 that "eccentric" is a BLP violation unless you find a source. The same for "self-proclaimed expert". The lawsuit was filed in Santa Fe, New Mexico on January 4, and so the local newspaper report in the Santa Fe New Mexican published on January 7 is more appropriate as a source than something from England on January 11. The wording I used came straight from the New Mexican article. Your unsourced opinion that electromagnetic hypersensitivity does not exist isn't relevant. The article clearly says that Firstenberg "attributes" his illness to electromagnetic radiation, and that the World Health Organization disagrees that such a thing is possible. Bearguardian (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you'll notice, the word 'eccentric' was not in the version discussed above; it was re-added at some point during the most recent flurry of edit warring on the 18th - by accident, for all I know, as I didn't participate in any of it. I've left out 'self-proclaimed expert' - although it's clearly apt - re-added 'alleged effects' and added 'activist'; as all of Firstenberg's published writings seem to have been published by the anti cell phone activism group he founded, it seems the most apt descriptor.  But my 'opinion' that EMS does not exist is not 'unsourced'; it's the majority opinoin of the medical community.  Where does the article make it clear that the WHO disagrees that Firstenberg's claims are credible?
 * Aside from being copyvio - as you point out, much of the wording comes directly from the article cited - your preferred version of the section on the lawsuit has a clear bias in favor of the subject and against the defendant in his lawsuit; wording like "for refusing to turn off her cell phone" and "rejection of his requests" sound like we are attempting to suggest that Firstenberg's requests were reasonable and the defendant's response unreasonable. That's for the courts to decide.  The source cited in the current version is also a higher-quality source; proximity to the events described does not make the source more reliable.  The fact that you've selected these phrases from a larger article on the subject is irrelevant - used as they are here, they create an impression that is clearly biased.  Please remember that there are two BLP subjects involved here; Firstenberg and the defendant.  We have to treat them both neutrally.
 * It's also not encouraging, Bearguardian, that you have returned to reverting the article almost immediately upon your return from a 48 hour block for edit warring without even trying to work towards a consensus here first. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not sourced your opinion about EMS, you have simply repeated it. There is a Wikipedia article about EMS that is fairly objective. I suggest you go read it. You are inserting your own unsourced bias your into the biography of a living person.Bearguardian (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection to the phrases I quoted. I lifted those two sentences verbatim, without editing them, from the first two sentences of the New Mexican article. I suggest that your choice of both source and wording shows a bit more bias.Bearguardian (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the article on EMS. Have you?  From the conclusion to the intro:  "The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and sham electromagnetic fields, and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities."  There are two sources for that statement.  The medical and scientific community do not recognize the disorder the subject claims he suffers from.  This is not my opinion, it is a fact.
 * Meanwhile, you have not addressed any of the points I brought up above. Yes, we've established that you quoted your source verbatim.  That's part of the problem - the text is plagiarized.  But I've already explained, specifically, what I find biased about your preferred wording - the text appears to be building an argument in favor of the subject and against the individual he is suing.  The fact that a local news source used the same words as part of a larger article does not change the fact that the lines, cherry picked and placed here out of their original context, suggest a bias against the defendant in the lawsuit.  She is also a living person and is equally protected by Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons.  What exactly do you feel is non-neutral about the wording that you have been reverting as 'vandalism' and 'libel'?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 14:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your problem, Vary? You have not cited any source except yourself that says Firstenberg is a "self-proclaimed expert," so quit putting it in there. That's a violation. "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." "Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources." "Unverifiable statements" (such as that Firstenberg is a an eccentric or a self-proclaimed expert) "could lead to liable claims." "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard to the subject's privacy."


 * "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." I have removed unsourced attributions such as "eccentric" and "self-proclaimed expert" and pared down the description to a completely neutral word. Firstenberg is an author. Period. Fact. You may legitimately say that the cause of EMS is controversial, but you may not legitimately say that EMS does not exist, since there is an extensive Wikipedia article describing it. You may legitimately say that the causes of EMS are "alleged," but you may not legitimately say that the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, which are well-known, are "alleged." Be careful not to confuse your own prejudices with facts.


 * "Content should be sourced to reliable sources." A short article written in another country is not a reliable source about a local conflict. A long local article that supplies abundant detail, in a major newspaper that has been reporting about Firstenberg's activities for several years is a reliable source. As for your complaints about plagiarism, I have now inserted quotation marks around the sentences I lifted from the New Mexican. I didn't cherry pick the quotes, that's how the article in the newspaper began. You have every right to have your own private opinion that the Santa Fe New Mexican's report is biased, but you have no right to contaminate a BLP with you own bias.Bearguardian (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot reject a source simply because it is foreign. In this case it is a well respected British trade publication with staff in the USA, and this copy was filed by one of their American writers. Five editors have opposed your edits, and you have been unable to justify your claims of BLP either here or at WP:BLPN, instead resorting to personal attacks and other unfounded accusations. The supported version should be restored and you should cease editwarring. Verbal chat  09:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Go read the Wikipedia article on "Electromagnetic radiation and health", please remove "purported" where it is not supported, and quit edit warring.Bearguardian (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearguardian, you are the one who's edit warring - and it would be difficult for anyone else to remove "purported" when you've already done it. I am trying to work with you here, and you have still for the most part avoided making any sort of constructive comments about what you think is wrong with the contributions of other editors who you've been reverting, instead choosing to focus on the contributors themselves.  The changes I made were new - and cited - changes to the article, and you've reverted them wholesale to once again enforce your preferred version, which is essentially unchanged from when you first began edit warring on this article.  Explain your revert in full, please.  Tell me - without making accusations against me or anyone else - what you thought was problematic about it so that we can try to come to a consensus about what to do next.  You simply can not continue to hold back progress on this article.  It is not yours.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've been highly active in the more than 24 hours since you reverted these changes, and still have not provided a justification for your revert, so I'm reinstating them. You can not keep reverting the article and stonewalling me here, Bearguardian - you need to explain what you think is wrong with my changes and why.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this text "He claims that his neighbors cell phone's electromagnetic fields are destroying his health and her charging laptop keeps him up at night, and that he has been made homeless as a result." is supported by RS and in no way breaks BLP. Also note that we don't say that he is "irrational", although he does have a phobia of "EMF" so it wouldn't necessarily be an unfair assertion by a source. It definitely isn't a reason to reject a source. I also like 2/0s improvements. Verbal  chat  08:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Please revert to the previous stable version (ed17, Vary or Verbal) as Bearguardian has not been able to support his claims here or at WP:BLPN. He has also editwarred (so far without censure, see WP:AN3) against the consensus and RS (claiming RS can't be used because they're foreign is not on). He has also claimed that the 5 editors opposing his edits are engaged in sockpuppetry WP:BLPN. In short, the consensus is against and he has been unable to support his edits. Verbal chat  09:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a content dispute and the opportunity to discuss the issues should at least be attempted. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They have been discussed above and at BLPN. Do you see any BLP issues with the edits, or have any problems with the sources? Myself and four other editors have not. Please feel free to join in the discussion. Verbal chat  16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the citation is a bit poor, this looks like hair splitting to me, why not leave the disputed sum out, it's actually a bit titillating stuff all round, leave the lot out until it actually comes to anything worthy of reporting and not claims of a suit that will likely never come to anything at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Requests using editprotected are only for undisputed changes with consensus. This page is currently protected because of a content dispute. I'm removing the request as it is not appropriate at this time. Hopefully constructive discussion on this issue can be made first. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Two versions
The difference ..one..

In January 2010, he filed a lawsuit against his neighbor, Raphaela Monribot, "for refusing to turn off her cell phone and other electronic devices." He "claims he has been made homeless by Monribot's rejection of his requests." http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Wi-Fi-foe-sues-neighbor-for-using-electronics

two...

In January 2010, he filed a suit against his neighbor seeking damages of $530,000. He claims her cell phone's electromagnetic fields are destroying his health and her charging laptop keeps him up at night.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/11/iphone_health

IMO the santafemexican is the stronger of the two citations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The register is an international trade publication. The Santa Fe New Mexcian is a local paper.  Why is the local paper the better source?  At any rate, the objections about the source are just a distraction.  The issue is how the information is presented.  Bias is bias even if it's cited, and I think that the wording that Bearguardian has edit warred to keep in place, over the objections of six other editors, is unfairly biased against the defendant, for reasons which I've already explained above.  She is equally protected by wp:blp.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not Beargardian edit warring it is two editors with a content dispute the other editor also had stood on the line of warring as well, personally, I prefer discussion as a better outcome to edit dispute, new editors easily get carried away. I don't see the need or value of adding the amount of the claim, to be clear I like the beargardian edit and the citation supporting it, this is hair splitting, pure and simple. I find the first version more balanced and preferable and the santafe report more extensive and detailed and through that, more accurate. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's seven editors with a 'content dispute', Rob. The problem here is that I've had a very difficult time getting Bearguardian to cite specific issues with the text; s/he instead attacks me over wording that I'd already removed; ie 'eccentric' and 'self-proclaimed expert', both referenced in the diatribe of 20:08, 25 February, or attacks the 'source' of the more neutral wording to justify her own version, rather than discussing the neutrality concerns themselves. This is why there is no constructive work being done on the article - I'm trying to work with Bearguardian, and I'm only getting hostility in return. I fear that protecting this frankly disruptive editor's preferred version is not going to help matters, as Bearguardian now has absolutely no incentive to work with the rest of us, and has been given tacit approval for his/her edit warring.  Using wording like "refusing" and "rejection of his requests" sounds to me like we're building a case that Firstenberg's 'requests'  were reasonable and the defendant's 'refusal' unreasonable.  Ignoring the wording in the intro that has long since been taken out, what is unbalanced about the version that Bearguardian removed in their first edit?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy is clearly fringe but we should represent from a npov position, it's good that eccentric and self acclaimed'' this and that have gone, lets go with the santafe citation and more detailed report and the simple forced out of his home comment. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not. By being overly cautious about not painting Firstenberg negatively, we are being unfair to the defendant.  This is not a local story, it's an international one, which is why it's been reported internationally.  We can use both if you want, but the Register is a solid source for this article, and the dollar amount of the suit in particular adds context about the magnitude of the issue for the two people involved.  I see no justification for using direct quotes from the news source, either.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the name of the defendant should not be included, the claimed amount adds nothing, where are the international citations reporting this issue? The santafe report is clearly the much stronger more detailed report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the name of the defendant.Bearguardian (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lengths of the two articles is irrelevant. The Register is a stronger source, period.  But even if it wasn't, there is absolutely no call to exclude it.  Your opinion that The New Mexican is a stronger source does not make The Register an unreliable one.  The two sources do not disagree on any of the facts of the case - that is, we don't have the New Mexican reporting, for example, a different dollar amount than the Register - so it doesn't matter which source you think is better; there is no reason why they can't both be used for information.  My concern, again, is not the information or its sources - I don't think anyone is disputing any of the actual facts of the case - but with the way the information is being presented.  Removing the defendant's name does not absolve us of treating her as a BLP subject, so the section on the lawsuit can not be biased in favor of either participant.  I have explained what I think is wrong about Bearguardian's version and right about the last stable version.  You have essentially only said you 'like' Bearguardian's.  What exactly do you think Bearguardian's version does better than the last stable version and why?  Why, for example, does the amount that Firstenberg is seeking 'add nothing'?  I've explained why it's relevant.  Can you give a reason why it's not?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears likely inaccurate and in the long term will be meaningless, stick to the basic clear facts and you can't go wrong, in the longer more details report they have not mentioned this figure, so we have two reports one with the figure and one without, leave it out, the only figure that will have any real value is the figure awarded, the outcome, there is a case which I could easliy support for leaving the whole thing out until it is actually correctly reportable. What we have now is a claimed legal report, that if it were a human being it would be a new born baby, that has a long way to go to maturity and may or may not come to anything at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Likely inaccurate? It's a matter of public record, Rob.  This isn't hearsay; The Register is reporting on Firstenberg's published and freely accessible legal filings.  There can be no question that he has filed a lawsuit in the amount of just over half a million dollars.  I'm very sorry but excluding a reliably cited fact because one local news source did not report it is simply absurd.  I agree that if/when the suit is settled the amounts awarded, if any, will be relevant as well, but that does not mean that the amount in damages Firstenberg is seeking is not; it's as relevant to his article as the lawsuit itself (read: very) because it's a part of his ongoing activism against WiFi, cell phones and so on.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The register is a WP:RS and as Vary says this is all a matter of public record. There is no valid reason for excluding this valid source, which is very relevant to the subject of the article. Verbal chat  21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A blind person could see the the santafe article is a much more detailed coverage of the story, that is clearly the strongest citation from the two. I can see that there is no real point in discussion so I will leave the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the nature of the Santa Fe source, I'm disputing your rejection of the other source. However, I do feel the register is "the stronger" RS in this case, and please stay civil and assume good faith. Both sources can be used. Verbal chat  16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I have no problem with continuing to cite the "New Mexican" for what information it does provide, as I've said before.  My problem is with directly quoting the SFNM in a way that slants the text in favor of one party in the lawsuit over the other.  You're quite right, Rob, that there is no real point to this discussion; all of our opinions on the relative strengths of the two sources are irrelevant because the sources do not disagree on facts, they just don't report the same facts.  If one article reported one figure and the other a different one it would be a different matter where the strengths of the two sources would be very relevant.  But the argument 'I think this source is stronger and it doesn't report that fact so we can't use it' is spurious; the only reason to exclude a fact only reported in one of two sources is if the second is unreliable.  'Reliable' and 'unreliable' sources are distinct from 'stronger' and 'weaker' ones.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's get serious here, Vary and Verbal. This is not a dispute about which is the stronger source. You two are intent on inserting content that is derogatory to this author, and so you like sources that have that slant. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia.Bearguardian (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Your accusations are inappropriate, Bearguardian.  You've benefited quite a lot from other editors' assumptions of good faith on your part recently; you should try to assume the same of others.  We're working on the best way to present the section on the lawsuit without favoring or disfavoring either participant.  Exactly what about the previous version of the section on the lawsuit did you find derogatory?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 14:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to show some good faith as well. I've agreed to removing the defendant's name from the article. You've agreed to nothing. The history of your edits includes "eccentric," "self-proclaimed expert," "alleged," and the favoring of a source that says "people like Arthur Firstenberg just give everyone with irrational fears about new technology a bad name." Talk about bias.Bearguardian (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've "agreed to nothing"? Bearguardian, I have reverted this article all of four times, and throughout the dispute I have been making changes to the wording - which you then reverted wholesale - and requesting clarification from your objections in an attempt to work towards some sort of an agreement on what is wrong with the article and how it should be fixed. You, on the other hand, have reverted almost a dozen times to the version you put into place on Feb 5 with, no changes and virtually no explanation of what you find objectionable about the previous version (although you've said plenty of how objectionable you find the other editors who are working on the article).  I removed "self-proclaimed expert" and "eccentric", as I've pointed out more than once, and I need you to stop accusing me of doing otherwise right now.  Bringing those long-gone terms up again and again as if they prove that I am biased against the subject is deceptive, not to mention disruptive.  You must stop accusing other editors of bias - of which you have absolutely no evidence - and start discussing the content.  If you must continue making accusations, then please present any evidence you may have the blp noticeboard.  Continuing to avoid discussion of the content by making unfounded accusations against other editors is disruptive.  So I'll ask you again: exactly what about the previous version of the section on the lawsuit did you find derogatory?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearguardian, If you feel you have a case, please post your justification to the BLP noticeboard for wider review and let us know here. At the moment it is being ignored as you haven't made a case supporting your assertions. Unless you do so we can't evaluate or discuss them. Please also strike the accusations of sockpuppetry you have made. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:12, 28 February 2010

(UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have ignored everything both I and two other editors have said to you, and you react to everything with hostility. Let's agree on a few things. I acknowledge that you have removed eccentric. Can we agree that it will not go back in in the future? You have removed self-proclaimed expert. Can we agree that it will not go back in in the future? I agreed already to removed the defendant's name. Can you agree on that also? Can you agree not to put "alleged" back in when it modifies bioeffects of electromagnetic radiation (on which there is a very long Wikipedia article)? Can you agree not to put back in a source (The Register) that is only a secondary source and that calls Firstenberg "irrational"? I'm asking you to agree to specific things. If not, please say why not. If you want me to agree to anything, please ask instead of calling me disruptive. We're supposed to come to consensus here.Bearguardian (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's reading less like an attempt to come to an agreement and more like a list of demands, Bearguardian. I am not going to 'agree' to any of the above.  Instead, I'd like you to please answer the very simple question that I've put to you several times already:  what about the previous version of the section on the lawsuit did you find derogatory?  We can not work on improving the wording until you tell me what the actual problem is, and letting this discussion veer all over the place is not going to get us anywhere.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 05:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have come up with new versions, while you are simply restoring your preferred version. There is nothing "illegal" in the current text and it is fully supported by RS. I will not agree to your demands as they are not based in wikipedia policy and would damage the article. We shouldn't exclude reliable sources just because we disagree with them. Also note the ES article is pretty clear that it doesn't exist (or is at least not caused by electromagnetic radiation). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The source also states "for Ad-Hoc Association, The Communications Workers of America," so we should be specific that it was the ad-hoc group and not the entire Communications Workers of America organisation. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reinstate Lawsuit against his neighbor Section
It is a fact that Arthur Firstenberg sued his neighbor over her use of modern technology. There are multiple articles that detail this, as well as court records that can be found. While we should always do our best to refrain from characterizations, a simple statement of facts which show the person's actions is not something that violates any policy. 208.44.170.100 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Be conservative
I have to agree with Off2riorob and Bearguardian. First, Vary has not provided any documentation for claiming that Firstenberg is a "self-proclaimed expert," so it cannot be included in a BLP. Second, inserting "alleged" reveals Vary's own bias about the issue. It is totally unnecessary. Third, the Santa Fe New Mexican article is the stronger of the two citations because it is an comprehensive 816-word article, whereas the Register article, at 248 words, is much less in-depth.Jujuvee (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Section title, x-rays, FCC lawsuit
As far as I can tell, it would be much more accurate to name the first section section "Campaign Against Wireless Technologies" or "Campaign Against Microwave Technologies". His house evidently has electric power (the lawsuit against his neighbor says his meter is on his neighbor's house). His book and his most notable activities all have to do with cellphones, cellular antennas, and Wi-Fi. In fact it's not so much the technologies he argues against, as the microwaves themselves. A more fitting title might be "Campaign Against Microwave Pollution" or "Campaign to Restore Natural Levels of Microwave Radiation".

The phrase "which he attributes to diagnostic dental x-rays" should be changed to "which he attributes to 'about 50' diagnostic dental x-rays, as it otherwise gives an impression that he believes a single set of x-rays can cause electrical hypersensitivity.

I believe an earlier version of this page described the lawsuit his group brought against the FCC, which is more notable (if less sensational) than the lawsuit against his neighbor. Physicsjock (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored the title as the replacement was far too long, but I don't have a problem with a shorter alternative. Also, no problem with the 50 so long as the reference is attached. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I put the FCC lawsuit in. I think the WHO sentence you reverted is a mistake.  Firstly, they don't mention Firstenberg specifically, so I question why it is here.  Second, it is an unsigned "fact sheet" not subject to external peer review.  Third, the EMF program of the WHO has been largely discredited, as it was run by Michael Repacholi who was paid by the industry it was supposed to be investigating: Microwave News.  Electrical sensitivity is a scientific controversy, especially in light of recent papers by N. Leitgeb, regardless of what the Wiki page on it says.Physicsjock (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Microwave news" is not a reliable source (indeed it is a fringe source), and the WHO factsheet has not been discredited. It is there to put his views in context, in order to be neutral. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read Microwave News for a long time. Even TIME magazine calls it "meticulously researched".  I've served on a WHO panel.  Believe me very few people at WHO or in any medical organization know very much about EMFs.  Except Repacholi, who knows from the inside.  Here is what Microwave News says about WHO EMF program (and let me know if you find any other sources that have actually researched it):
 * This is in addition to the $150,000 a year, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) gives the EMF project each year. (MMF's Mike Milligan confirmed this to Microwave News in 2003.Physicsjock (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for conspiracy theories. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say conspiracy, and Wikipedia is supposed to include minority views when they are notable; and this page would not exist if the view was not notable. In this case if you cite the WHO "factsheet" your are really citing one individual, Mike Repacholi (and a staff he hired), who got money then and is getting money now from the industry.  You are ignoring what the Director General of the WHO said .  Microwave News has been in operation since 1981, and is less biased than most other sources in that it is not funded by the industry or its advertising. Physicsjock (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am ignoring personal opinions. We are reporting the approved opinion of the relevant WHO body, hence the WHO - not a single persons opinion but that of the WHO, and as no scientific organisation dissents this can be taken to be the consensus view. See below. Microwave News is incredibly biased, and fails WP:RS. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, be careful of making further accusations against living people, per WP:BLP. Please don't do it again. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Activist"
Firstenberg is first and foremost an 'activist'. All of the reliable sources that could be used to establish this individual's notability are primarily about lawsuits and other activities related to his "Cellular Phone Taskforce" and his opinions on electromagnetic radiation, and all of his writings are published by that organization or other fringe sources. The RSs being used to cite the article often mention the book, but they are not about the book. If Firstenberg were only, or even primarily, an 'author', he would not have a Wikipedia article. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 164.64.58.99's edits should be reverted as they are special pleading and replacing sourced content with opinion. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see that 164.64.58.99 replaced very much, mainly added a lot of contextual information. My original suggestion was to leave all of the context about the debate over electrical sensitivity to the page on that subject.  But the WHO quote came back, and now this other material.  I will try my hand at smoothing it out and keeping to sourced content. Physicsjock (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to improve it, but... that section should be perhaps split in two. One just focusing on Firstenberg's activities, the other on what various authorities might have said that might be relevant.  It would also seem logical to have a more complete list of his writings as a section, and more details of what his position is and what he is advocating for.  The list of citations in his book is impressive.  I only know a fraction of that scientific literature, but he seems to cite solid science. Physicsjock (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the who info is relevant to give the scientific context. I also agree that the "special pleading" should be removed, an have done so —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaearlygreyhot (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstenberg is first and foremost a QUACK - being that he is proselytizing his mental issues in the guise of science.
 * Treating him differently from someone publishing books on flat Earth or alien abductions based on personal experience of either and buttressed by cherry picked "scientific" sources would be the same as pushing conspiracy theories about UFOs, JFK or WHO and CDC. 46.163.3.15 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Lessemf.com
There is no way this is a valid reference for a biography. --Teaearlygreyhot (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to a link... it certainly substantiates the existence of the magazine and Firstenberg as editor, and it seems to indicate that No Place to Hide is one of only 3 major printed sources of information on electrical sensitivityPhysicsjock (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It just is in no way a reliable source, especially for a BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaearlygreyhot (talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything written by the subject is considered reliable, and that link was to the entire collection of magazines edited by the subject. Physicsjock (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything written by the subject is considered a reliable source for opinions of the subject. Not for existence of other books or a general reliable source. I'm not sure that it is necessarily trustworthy for his qualifications, editorships, or the like. It does not substantiates the existence of the magazine. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They have been in business for 14 years, and will sell you the magazines for $75, and you don't believe the magazines exist?! Physicsjock (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to come to some agreement... why is the WHO "factsheet" relevant but the position of Director General of the WHO and the position of the EPA not relevant? I still think the cleanest solution is to simply refer to pages on Electromagnetic radiation and health, health effects of wireless technology, and electrical hypersensitivity for more information. It is pointless to try to resolve those issues again on this page.Physicsjock (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We should be linking to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, not to Electromagnetic radiation and health. There is very little overlap between the proven effects detailed in the latter article and Firstenberg's claims.  We don't need a full discussion of the subject, but we can not portray Firstenberg's beliefs about the dangers of cell phone use as anything other than fringe science. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE, we need to present the scientific consensus that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not actually a sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. The personal opinion of the former DG is not relevant to this article at all. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The WHO factsheet is a convenient highly reliable statement of the mainstream view that the frequencies described are mostly harmless. This provides the necessary context for Firstenberg's views, and it would be a disservice to our readers to fail to provide something along those lines. I agree that we should not be arguing EHS here or using the article as a coatrack. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like the 3 editors above are not very familiar with Firstenberg's writings. Very little of it has to do with electromagnetic hypersensitivity.  The main motivation for his book is the environmental damage of microwave communications and radar.  He writes much more about the health effects on the general population than hypersensitivity, citing heavily early studies from the Former Soviet Union.  One of the most noteworthy articles in his magazine looked at changes in health statistics in major cities as cellphone systems went live.  Electromagnetic radiation and health should absolutely be linked... Firstenberg had a page on Wikipedia long before his recent lawsuit.  Remarkably, there has been little if any improvement in the page since 2007.  The Further Reading section in 2007 provided a better starting point for people who actually want to know about him than what we have now.

75.173.18.229 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant SPI filing
I have made a relevant SPI filing here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Nevetsnairb. Please comment or add to it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was blank. What are you claiming?Physicsjock (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They've all already been blocked as sockpuppets. See the archive. You might want to get more experience editing other topics in wikipedia too. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

link to scientific study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440612/ I think this needs to be written into the article. This man credibility is extremely low and the article gives him far too much credit.75.159.11.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Arthur Firstenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828194122/http://mindfully.org/Technology/2006/Firstenberg-EMF-Experiment1jan06.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2006/Firstenberg-EMF-Experiment1jan06.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050318194815/http://www.earthisland.org:80/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=202&journalID=47 to http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=202&journalID=47

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)