Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 1

Recent Edits
Does the page make even the remotest bit of sense right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.110 (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The lawmakers in Maine and Michigan seem to think so. Jeremystalked talk 13:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Taser
Does a Taser count as an electronic weapon? Biscuittin (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Maine's law, it would: a taser is a "portable device or weapon emitting an electrical current, impulse, beam, or wave with disabling effects on a human being". I'm not aware of how often this law is used or whether it has been applied to taser-related offenses.Jeremystalked talk 05:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A gross misrepresentation of sources
I have deleted the section entitled 'Laws against electronic harassment in the United States' as a complete fraud - none of the legislation cited (which is a primary source, and shouldn't be used in this way anyway) refers to 'electronic harassment' at all. Since the article is now unsourced, I shall shortly be nominating it for deletion, unless someone can find reliable published secondary sources which explicitly refer to 'electronic harassment' in the form described in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerned about POV
Doing a little searching for eletronic harassment brought up the story that I've added in external links - that Aaron Alexis claimed he was being harassed shortly before the Washington Navy Yard shooting.

I'm nervous of writing the article and using this info without something to balance that very extreme position and the implication that people who hear voices could all suddenly snap and go on a rampage, but the other sources don't offer anything clear to balance it out. I'm going to continue thinking about this before finalising the article, but I think I've established with the sources that there is space for this article so anyone watching this page please help to improve it rather than redirecting/deleting. GDallimore (Talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Laws in other states/jurisdictions
There's supposedly a law against electronic harassment in Massachusetts, but I haven't found it yet.

Several years ago, Dennis Kucinich tried to get a law passed (HR 2977) referencing "psychotronics", but right now there's no obvious link (in terms of reliable sources) between psychotronics (mind control technologies) and electronic harassment that I'm aware of. Jeremystalked (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a law in Massachusetts, prohibiting the possession and use of electronic and directed-energy weapons. See Radgrace (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014
This page needs more substantive information, especially information from organizations of individuals experiencing electronic harassment and media sources citing the same.

Radgrace (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 17:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the last thing this article needs is to become a repository of harassment allegations from individuals identified as delusional by every reliable source I can find. GDallimore (Talk) 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The real defintion of Electronic Harassment
Electronic Harassment is the use of electronics or electrical equipment for the purpose of harassing an individual from a distance. This could include easedropping to collect information for smearing or slandering a person, or use of hidden energy emitting devices that make a person feel uncomfortable. It may also include use of electronics to exert sublimital influence to trick a person into making mistakes or bad decisions that cause embarassment, finanial loss, or huminiation. It may also include use of gps tracking to influence people near the individual to harass, or to indirectly relay information to the person being electronically harassed.

Other topics under electronic harassment subject: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyberstalking
 * Cyberbullying
 * Phone cloning
 * Cellphone spying

Electronic harassment smear campaigns
In the past there have been efforts to smear and hide that electronic harassment is real by confusing it with people who are insane. The reality is that it is possible to electronically harass people. Even the use of Electromagnetic radiation is not far fetched give that the US military even has harassment weapons based off of microwaves that can cause a crowd of people to run from the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There are documented cases of the mob using operating microwave ovens cut open on one side to soften up their enemies by holding them against the wall in adjacent hotel rooms, and apartments. This was public shown on TV on documentaries related to mob activity.

With regards to Electromagnetic radiation, A clear sign that electronic harassment is real is damage to the most sensitive areas such as the eyes or testies. Or in the case where ionizing radiation is used unusual development of skin leasons, darking of skin, cell deaths leaving bowl shapes in the limbs where direction radiation was cronically exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Electronic harassment is really about harassing a person at a distance in order to remain anonymous and to use any electronics or electrical devices possible to harass the person. this could even include something as mundane as turning on a car alarm every night at 3 am for an hour to make sure the person can't sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for general discussions regarding electronic harassment. Please confine future posts to material of direct relevance to article content - which must be based on published reliable sources on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased sources and lack of research effort on the subject
I'm kind of amazed with this article and it's lack of effort to provide a reliable idea about what electronic harassment is. The term electronic harassment could be linked with any activity involving the use of non-lethal weaponry -usually based on electromagnetic beams- to harass, disrupt or discourage activities from groups or civilians.

The existence of this weaponry is better described on articles like DEW and Microwave auditory effects, this last based on a disclosed document from DoD describing the potential effects of the exotic electromagnetic weapons on human targets and the congruence of the symptoms with psychological/psychiatric conditions for the target or third parties:

"Secret NOFORN" in the USA from (at the latest) 1998, until the declassification on 6 December 2006 of "Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weaponry" in response to a FOIA request. Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. Quoting from the above source, "Microwave hearing may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard "voices within one's head".Source to original document

Here is another source on "Microwave Bioeffect Congruence with Schizophrenia" to be checked extending the exotic weaponry issue even more.

In the other hand, this article it's merely based on old newspaper appreciations plus the attempt of the editors trivial knowledge about the subject, even using as external references the case of Navy Yard shooting generalizing the possible targets/victims with not only insanity but terrorist/violent tendencies. With little research you find articles describing this weapon capability or the concerning around the world. Also, the new findings -thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden- on remote technologies to gather/recover information using remote technologies shows that these devices aren't merely speculations or sci-fi conspiracies (Top secret devices CTX4000 and LOUDAUTO).

So, I'm not asking to the editors to believe on possible victims stories, to include conspiracy websites nor to drop their current sources if they think those are reliable sources, but to improve their research efforts and add the other side of the story that's absolutely not reduced to groups of mentally ill and dangerous people as the article try to evidence. Sorry if my Wiki edition isn't very good I'm newbie to the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motheus (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your inline citations aren't working. Let me know if you need some help. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Fixed the links as citations didn't work as i expected. Still learning how to use wiki's bbcode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motheus (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

leade
Electronic harassment is the use of Directed-energy weapons (also called Non-lethal weapons) to harass a victim.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

History
In November of 1992, a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article mentions a mind-control operation performed jointly between the United States and Canada beginning in 1955. Financed by the Central Intelligence Agency through a phony front organization called the Investigation of Human Ecology, about $60-75,000 went to Dr. Ewen Cameron at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. The Canadians allegedly picked up the rest of the tab, of about $200,000. Even though this is 1950s dollars, considering the nature of covert funding there is no real way to know exactly how much was spent on this project the article states.

1962, During the Cold War era, the Frey, an American neuroscientist studied this phenomenon and was the first to publish results in the (Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 17, pages 689-692, 1962) detailing the nature of the microwave auditory effect. This is how the name, “Frey effect” became known as one of many names for this technology such Synthetic / Artificial Telepathy, Neural Decoding, and the “Hearing Voices” effect. Today this technology is more commonly known by the Department of Defense and within the neuro-scientific community as Synthetic Telepathy or Voice of God technology. However overall combined research program focusing on mind control efforts date back decades Project Bluebird

In 1975 official admissions of a technological capability to transmit human voices directly into the human brain via technology, capable, of isolating a single individual in a crowd, Microwave auditory effect was exampled during a presentation by Dr. Don R Justesen, a Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital Neuroscientist, Kansas City, Missouri, in 1975. And the presentation was published as an article entitled "Microwaves and Behavior" in The American Psychologist (Volume 30, March 1975, Number 3) as a successful a successful voice-to-skull, microwave voice transmission, using the Frey effect, named after Allan H. Frey.

In 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich factually tried to curtail the use of electromagnetic radio frequency technology, which he documented as land, sea, and space based and capable of mood management via radio frequencies, in his Space Preservation Act of 2001 HR 2977,. The technology in question today is also portable such as the “Silent Guardian” manufactured by Raytheon, and hand held such astaser which are smaller versions of the Active Denial System or Microwave technologies.

Missouri State Representative Jim Guest attempted in 2007 to rally his constituents against microwave Directed Energy Weapon's extremely low frequency used as covert physical torture, in an official letter which many report is part of Electronic torture, by substantiating the technology’s use on U.S. citizens and even children, termed by Jim guest as Electronic Weapon Torture.

Approval for usage today is no longer exclusive for the Federal level, but also today State, City and local agencies have highly developed technical operation divisions, today being used in the testing program legalized to test technology for riot and crowd control approved under the “Exception Clause” of U.S. Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520a, Electronic Surveillance Laws, and along with similar legalized use by DOD regulation 5240 1.R deployed from state-of-the art operation centers, to include, for example, the LAPD Real Time Analysis and Critical Response Division (RACR) the Satellite Surveillance Division a typical example of deployment by local law enforcement agencies across the US. connected to joint efforts by Fusion center which were 72 across the U.S. in 2010, and have significantly grown, and military operations.

In creating highly technical Fusion Center’s, with fall back technology and connecting all levels of law enforcement operation centers, and military personnel stationed with the US, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hoped to create a wide network of centers which would be tied to the agency’s day-to-day activities according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). As a result, a new paradigm has emerged of covert and new technological dynamic termed “Electronic Harassment” with characteristics similar to targeting of COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO was the 1960 program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at destroying groups on the American political left, targeting activist or whistle-blowers, etc.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Diagnosis
The Washingtonpost and NBC describe alleged victims as suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders and other mental illnesses.

After the Korean War, returning U.S. Prisoner of war (POWs) reported to Dr. W. Ross Adey, a neuroscientist working for Walter Reed, and later Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital, and Loma Linda, California and UCLA, reported that while captive, the Koreans were using a device attempting to extract information using a Brainwave entrainment machine. Dr. Adey learned that the device was actually a Russian device called the LIDA Machine, and a mini version of the Russian Woodpecker detailed here Duga-3. He was given a machine by the Russians for study and testing began within the United States immediately. The Soviets were, at that time, were far ahead in scientific research, related to brain entrainment frequencies, in fact, it would take what history documents as the Moscow Incident,

Most in the psychiatric community had no real knowledge of these technologies, dating back decades in research, testing and development programs, nor did they have the ability to check and verify the existence of such when seeing victims of Electronic Harassment.

Today, highly education individuals within the profession of psychiatry cannot be that blind and many activist would argue continue to play a pivotal role in discrediting victims which continues to allow these type of technology to continue and flourish. In fact, it is historically documented that MK ULTRA was spearheaded by psychiatrist, many of whom were high level officials of the American Psychiatric Association with the US and the Psychiatric Association of Canada who were willingly taking CIA funding to progress Remote Neural Monitoring studies, and technological development knowing these technologies emulate mental illnesses. .

Many who claim to be victims have become proactive and have taken their plight to the public via the internet and books and some Targeted Individuals or TIs, have won small victories of some type related to Electronic Harassment in the court system. James Walbert, Kansas City, Missouri of Kansas City, Missouri, was one, supported by Jim Guest’s confirmation of the technology along with unclassified documents presented at court won after the defendant was a no show, and recently, a victory for Kathleen Watterson of Oakland, California against a member of her community privy to use of this technology through what is reported as InfraGard but are reported as Organized Community Stalking efforts and an arm of “Electronic Harassment”. Both of these victories were against individual involvement and use of portable Electronic Harassment technology. However, to date, no one has been able to successfully litigate against powerful government agencies and their spearheading of these efforts and a number of noteworthy Plaintiff’s such as ex-National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, John St. Clair Akwei vs. National Security Agency have been dismissed. .

MK ULTRA an official government mind control testing program, which ran from the 50s through the 70s historically, cannot be denied as a mind control effort, and it appears early ongoing studies and research became the foundation for mass Extremely Low Frequency Radio Frequency population control technology and systems in use today. Operation Paperclip which brought 1500 Nazi scientist, technicians, etc., to the U.S. after the war who continue scientific studies focused in the arena of mind control today known as, psychological electronic or Psychotronics.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

microwave auditory effect

 * main article: microwave auditory effect

The microwave auditory effect, also known as the microwave hearing effect or the Frey effect, consists of audible clicks (or, with speech modulation, spoken words) induced by pulsed/modulated microwave frequencies. The clicks are generated directly inside the human head without the need of any receiving electronic device. The effect was first reported by persons working in the vicinity of radar transponders during World War II. These induced sounds are not audible to other people nearby. The microwave auditory effect was later discovered to be inducible with shorter-wavelength portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. During the Cold War era, the American neuroscientist Allan H. Frey studied this phenomenon and was the first to publish information on the nature of the microwave auditory effect.

Pulsed microwave radiation can be heard by some workers; the irradiated personnel perceive auditory sensations of clicking or buzzing. The cause is thought to be thermoelastic expansion of portions of auditory apparatus. The auditory system response occurs at least from 200 MHz to at least 3 GHz. In the tests, repetition rate of 50 Hz was used, with pulse width between 10–70 microseconds. The perceived loudness was found to be linked to the peak power density instead of average power density. At 1.245 GHz, the peak power density for perception was below 80 mW/cm2. However, competing theories explain the results of interferometric holography tests differently.

In 2003, the US Navy conducted research on an MAE system they called MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) as a way to remotely, temporarily incapacitate personnel. The system was designed by WaveBand Corporation in 2003-2004. The system relied on the principle of MAE, varying the power and parameters of the microwave pulses “to raise the auditory sensation to the ‘discomfort’ level, deterring personnel from entering a protected perimeter or, if necessary, temporarily incapacitating particular individuals.”

There are extensive online support networks and numerous websites maintained by people fearing mind control. Psychologists are divided over whether such sites negatively reinforce mental troubles or act as a form of group cognitive therapy.

Those who claim to be victims of Electronic harassment have claimed that government agents make use of electric fields, microwaves (such as the microwave auditory effect) and radar to transmit sounds and thoughts into their heads, referring to technology that they say can achieve this as "voice to skull" or "V2K" after an obsolete military designation.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Project MKUltra

 * main article: Project MKUltra

thumb|Declassified MKUltra documents

Project MKUltra — sometimes referred to as the CIA's mind control program — is the code name of a U.S. government human research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans. Organized through the Scientific Intelligence Division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the project coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the U.S. Army's Chemical Corps. The program began in the early 1950s, was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967 and officially halted in 1973. The program engaged in many illegal activities; in particular it used unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy. MKUltra used numerous methodologies to manipulate people's mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.

The scope of Project MKUltra was broad, with research undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies. The CIA operated through these institutions using front organizations, although sometimes top officials at these institutions were aware of the CIA's involvement. As the Supreme Court later noted, MKULTRA was:

"concerned with 'the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior.' The program consisted of some 149 subprojects which the Agency contracted out to various universities, research foundations, and similar institutions. At least 80 institutions and 185 private researchers participated. Because the Agency funded MKULTRA indirectly, many of the participating individuals were unaware that they were dealing with the Agency."

Project MKUltra was first brought to public attention in 1975 by the Church Committee of the U.S. Congress, and a Gerald Ford commission to investigate CIA activities within the United States. Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MKUltra files destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms' destruction order.

In 1977, a Freedom of Information Act request uncovered a cache of 20,000 documents relating to project MKUltra, which led to Senate hearings later that same year. In July 2001 some surviving information regarding MKUltra was officially declassified.

Before 1977 the New York Times describe the CIA Project of Behavior Modification and different types of Directed-energy weapon, patents, research, testing and development. .

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
On Jesse Ventura's Television show "Conspiracy Theory", episode "Brain Invaders", Harlan Girard, one of the first activist related to the use of Military Industrial Complex technology, listed the “Mind Games” article. Referenced within this article is an interview with Sharon Weinberger as a victim of over 30 years of Electronic Harassment. Also spotlighted are insiders privy to the development of Voice to Skull for mainstream use in America, is Dr. Robert Duncan,author of "Project: Soul Catcher Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed" who claimed that today voice to skull (V2K) or Synthetic Telepathy technology is used in the U.S. and many NATO countries, along with bio-coded Biometric Surveillance Biometrics Surveillance and a combined effort coupled with a Directed Energy Weapon global tracking system. Many are reporting being used, non-consensually, due to necessitated testing, legally, after 9/11, designed to track and monitor “Domestic Terrorist”.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Psychotronics
In Russia, a group called "Victims of Psychotronic Experimentation" attempted to recover damages from the Federal Security Service during the mid-1990s for alleged infringement of their civil liberties including "beaming rays" at them, putting chemicals in the water, and using magnets to alter their minds. These fears may have been inspired by revelations of secret research into "psychotronic" psychological warfare techniques during the early 1990s, with Vladimir Lopatkin, a State Duma committee member in 1995, surmising "Something that was secret for so many years is the perfect breeding ground for conspiracy theories."

In the US, there are a growing number of people who hear voices in their heads that claim the government is using "psychotronic torture" against them, and who campaign to stop the use of alleged psychotronic and other mind control weapons. These campaigns have received some support from government representatives including Dennis Kucinich and Jim Guest. Yale psychiatry professor Ralph Hoffman notes that people often ascribe voices in their heads to external sources such as government harassment, God, and dead relatives, and it can be difficult to persuade them that their belief in an external influence is delusional. Other experts compare these stories with accounts of alien abductions.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Biometric data mining
The Information Awareness programs goal was to download biometric characteristics all U.S. citizen’s using biometric signatures (DNA, Iris, gait, voice, facial recognition, etc.) into a mega computer resulting which could result with anyone becoming the focus for technology testing or in anyone being effortlessly tracked and monitored any and everywhere on the face of the Earth with ease without those at the helm even leaving the building via Brain-computer interface.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Patent Art
The United Patent and Trademark Office officially lists numerous electromagnetic patents known to create the identical technological effect characteristic of what target’s call Voice to Skull (V2K) and what the Military Industrial Complex calls the Voice of God technology, for example, the MEDUSA (weapon which essentially is the Microwave auditory effect or Frey effect as portable. The satellite delivered method capable of harassment and mood management, is exampled by technology known as the Neurophone.  The Neurophone was invented by Patrick Flanagan, confiscated, immediately, placed under secrecy orders by the United States government in 1958 and returned to Flanagan in 1968..

Other patents, such as Robert Malech’s patent for brainwave altering is another version reported to be in widespread use. Malintent is the official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) mind reading super computer software system interpreting brainwave patterns into sentences.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

sections requiring aditional sources, rewriting and improvement
(a full summary of article sections below can not be written at this point)

Are the above content proposals in violation of guidelines?
I believe the current article, the way it is, to be inconsistent with Project_MKUltra. Primarly because no one did anything the last 4 years, I've attempted to reintroduce and update some of the older content in main space but was interrupted while doing so by an editor who did not believe I could accomplish such article. It seemed logical to debate the deleted sections and would like to continue to source and update the deleted/unaccepted sections here on the talk page. This was also not allowed. While I agree the material is quite elaborate and much of it doesn't make the cut, it does deserve a discussion and I'm not aware of limitations on talk page proposals. If it is really not allowed, I wonder what legitimate method remains to improve this article so that it is more in-line with the MKUltra project?

The current sources provided denouncing the "hoax" are:


 * http://www.jrn.com/kmir6/news/179055911.html
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?pagewanted=all

I believe these insuficient to prove the imaginary nature of Directed-energy_weapon, Sonic weapon and other Non-lethal weapon, but specially Project_MKUltra.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement whatsoever that this article be 'consistent' with any other - particularly one on another subject. What matters is that this article be properly sourced, that it reflects Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view etc (which I recommend you read carefully - it is often misunderstood), and that it otherwise gives proper encyclopaedic coverage of the subject matter. And as for what you believe about 'proving' anything, it is utterly irrelevant - Wikipeda articles are based on published reliable sources, not on the beliefs of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say, you are not here to write any article. That is the only relevant bit of information. Look at all the red contritions: The only green numbers are when you restore deleted content. Even those are just to antagonize productive editors. Perhaps the previous 500 contributions??? Nope not one example of article writing there. And from this position of illiteracy, you are going to lecture me about article writing??????? How talk pages work??????? You've never successfully used one!!! You chose to take ownership of this talk page in order to prevent anything constructive from happening. It was not with the intention to work on this article, your activities do not involve article writing. The question therefore is not what I'm doing on this page but what you are doing here? Why should anyone care for an opinion about a talk page from an editor who never writes articles?


 * 84.106.11.117 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to answer the RfC I was going to write a long diatribe about 84.106.11.117's behaviour. Instead I will just say that Andy the Grump is right, and working within policy and guidelines to improve this article, and wikipedia in general. props. On the other hand, 84.106.11.117, should this behaviour continue, is heading for a long block for disruptive editing and tendentiousness. (I doubt ATG cares about the associated incivility). 84.106.11.117 needs to appreciate that in order to edit here, we are obliged to do so within the policies and guidelines of the community. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In answer to the RfC, Yes. Proving the imaginary nature of something is backwards (see Russell's teapot). Reliable sources to support the reality of something one wishes to assert or discuss in WP articles is what is required. The list of appropriate policies starts with the three core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR a good look at the guidelines WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:FRIND would provide further elucidation. The OP should consider the guidelines WP:DE and WP:CIVIL and read carefully the essay WP:TE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page of an article is not the appropriate place to create and develop a proposed rewrite or extensive content. The sandbox is a fine place to develop an argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is instructing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to provide mechanisms for total human domination. Once fully developed with proper sourcing and proportional representation of significant published views as due, a pointer to the sandbox where The Truth™ is revealed can be provided on the talk page of the target article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out to Bill3 that wikipedia policy insists that we do not use the ™ modifier on wikipedia. Please be careful. thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything that could be said in response to this RFC has already been said: ie pointing the editor to the relevant guidelines. The problem is that the proposed edits are so far removed from anything remotely acceptable that there is nothing more that can be done or said until the editor has taken the time to educate themselves.

If the editor really does want to contribute usefully to this article, then making a 20K addition to it is not the way forward. Only small edits and corrections, clearly based on reliable sources, could ever be agreed upon. Everything else would just be reverted on sight. GDallimore (Talk) 11:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with practically everything in the foregoing responses to the RFC, and generally strongly. Incidentally, the standard of balance, courtesy and logic in the initiator's response to helpful contributions does not inspire either respect or the desire to waste his time by contributing further comments. However, he in turn need not take too seriously his responsibility to enlighten us all; in that connection any dereliction on his part might be borne philosophically JonRichfield (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page should be (auto) archived. I will do it when I get a chance, if no one objects. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussing "Electronic Harassment" content
It may not be correct to limit "electronic harassment" cases exclusively to "auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders or other mental illnesses" of those who claim to be "recipients" of microwave "treatment". It is just as possible that persons, suffering from mental illnesses and yet un-institutionalised, may belong to the opposite, i.e. "active" party. Such individuals, possessing sufficient technical knowledge and resources to rework any of commercially available sources of electromagnetic radiation, can inflict real bodily harm on their predominantly sane neighbors. I suggest the author of this article try to get rid of this discriminating attitude. Baruchim (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources that say that this is the case? If not, such speculation would be original research, which is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. Kolbasz (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you call "reliable sources"? Something with a government stamp on it? There is a testimony (among many others on the Internet) where a third-party witness tells a story of his neighbor who called the EMERCOM service (maintained by the Russian Ministry for Emergency Situations) complaining that he was beamed on with microwaves by the residents of the apartment directly above his. The EMERCOM guys came with a firm belief that the caller were yet another loonie. What they saw in his apartment further hardened them to the view that it was an obvious case of paranoia. However, they decided to have a look in the apartment above. To their amazement they saw there six microwave ovens without doors lying on the floor, and were also were told by the local tenants that the guy living below "was an alien who needed to be exterminated ASAP". Is this story true? — both answers are equally possible. Can you prove to me from "reliable sources" that all "victims" of EMR are loonies by definition, and those who live in neighboring apartments are all by default sane and sound people? Hardly... The intent of what I am suggesting is to attain in this article an attitude of parity and equality for such cases. The reality of EMR "malfeasance" can be proven by the following facts:
 * 1) the fact that it is technically feasible and hardware for this is easily available;
 * 2) the fact that nowadays (partly) insane people are often living among sane ones;
 * 3) the fact that there exist objective instrumental ways of detecting elevated EMR;
 * 4) the fact that EMR can really harm human organism;
 * 5) the fact that in many countries "electronic harassment" is already regarded as a malpractice punished under the law.


 * I think this is enough for now...
 * Baruchim (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me re-emphasize the point that Kolbasz made, that the material in Wikipedia articles must be derived from reputable published sources. That's particularly important for articles such as this one.  If you feel that mainstream published sources are wrong, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place where that wrong will be righted. Looie496 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking doors off microwave ovens wouldn't do a lot, since the mw emissions are focused on the floor of the oven and not aimed out its door. Might make the floor slightly warm but that's about all. Not to mention the problem of arranging the 60 or so amps of electrical power you would need to run such an array. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You need a reliable source to back up that assertion ;) GDallimore (Talk) 08:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

But I think we've gone off topic now... Kolbasz (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 60 A? Like most countries, Russia uses 230 V. 6 &times; 1100 W (a normal power draw for a low-end microwave oven) @ 230 V would require less than 30 A. :)
 * Damn. The microwave-oven-modifying-EMR=harassment cabal is too clever for me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Still I remain concerned with such wording as: "Electronic harassment is the alleged use of electromagnetic waves to harass a victim". What I dislike is the word "alleged" which means here "imagined" or "ungrounded". I believe this is contrary to the generally known fact that EMR can harm and even damage human health, can't it? And we are not talking about microwave ovens only. EMR emitters can be procured, reworked and used for malignant purposes by desiring individuals. This article, however, intends to reduce everything just to wishful thinking (such as "mind control", "inner voices", etc). Then the author should be more consistent and say: "...to harass their would-be victims." I call for being more objective and fair, avoiding one-sided approach wherever possible. Why couldn't we say "...is the often alleged but still technically feasible use of electromagnetic waves..."? - Baruchim (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your personal concerns are irrelevant. Find a reliable source which specifically mentions harrassment by EM waves and which shares your concerns and we can talk. All existing reliable sources state that electronic harrassment is a form of persecutory delusion, therefore that is what this article says.
 * The key point is that the obvious fact that EM waves can cause harm is not sufficient to be relevant to this article without the same source specifically connecting the dots between that potential to cause harm and actual harrassment of individuals. You are trying to connect dots yourself and that cannot be the basis of any change to this article. GDallimore (Talk) 21:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just another word for terrorism
Electronic harassment is real and is explicitly outlawed in many cases by US laws. Specifically, they are weapons of mass destruction under US law for using "radiation or radioactivity". EM radiation is a form of radiation and intelligence and terror organizations hate having their technology exposed. The fact that the people involved are desperate to cover up their terrorism and covert murders by polluting wikipedia should not be surprising.

Notability of sources
Notability should not be confused with reliability. Press TV is the english language news organization owned by the Republic of Iran, which has been accused of promoting unreliable propaganda, and they, along with others in the US and Europe have pushed this particular conspiracy theory quite heavily, but that doesn't make it not notable. Many US websites carry news stories from Press TV. Press TV (stylised PRESSTV) is a 24-hour English language news organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).[1] The IRIB is state-owned but independent of the Iranian government in its management, and its head is appointed directly by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The IRIB is the only legal TV and radio broadcaster inside Iran, and is close to Iran's conservative political faction. Claims of electronic harassment in the cases of the DC shootings, Navy Yard Shooter and the bank hostage situation were all documented by reliable mainstream news sources Bachcell (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidents
This section is placed here for discussion in case an editor decides unilaterally to remove it again. It's not OR, as these incidents are sourced to international mainstream media as cases of people who have claimed to be electronically harassed, even if such claims could be mere cover stories and excuses for deliberate mayhem as a true motive has not been uncovered for any of these apparent lone wolf attacks. Bachcell (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC) In 2008, James Walbert went to court claiming that his former business associate had threatened him with “jolts of radiation” after a disagreement, and later claimed feeling symptoms such as electric shock sensations, and hearing generated tones and other strange sounds in his ears. The court decided to issue an order banning “electronic means” to further harass Walbert.

In other cases, government authorities have made official statements dismissing such beliefs as being due to mental issues and delusions in connection with a number of violent and deadly incidents have been associated with individuals who claim to have been tormented as targeted individuals.

The following incidents involved in deaths of 17 and injuring of 6 in mass shootings and a car rampage.

Fuaed Abdo Ahmed was a 20-year-old man who on August 13, 2013, took two women and a man hostage at the St. Joseph branch of Tensas State Bank. He killed two of the hostages after releasing the third. He was an Arab of Yemeni descent and indicated an interest in militant Islam as he had been interviewed by the Homeland Security posing with an AK-47 assault rifle on a trip to Yemen. A subsequent police investigation officially concluded that whatever his motives, Ahmed suffered from mental issues such as hearing voices and paranoid schizophrenia, and acted alone as a lone gunman and was not involved in an act of terrorism against the United States. Ahmed accused the family of his ex-girlfriend of placing a "microphone device" of some kind in his head.

The Washington Navy Yard shooting occurred on September 16, 2013, when lone gunman Aaron Alexis fatally shot twelve people and injured three others in a mass shooting at the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) inside the Washington Navy Yard in Southeast Washington, D.C.  The attack, which took place in the Navy Yard's Building 197, began around 8:20 a.m. EDT and ended when Alexis was killed by police around 9:20 a.m. EDT. After the Navy Yard shooting, the media speculated that Alexis had appeared to be suffering from mental illness. The media reported that Alexis had filed a police report in Rhode Island on August 2, 2013, in which he claimed to be the victim of harassment and that he was hearing voices in his head. According to an FBI official after the shooting, Alexis was under "the delusional belief that he was being controlled or influenced by extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves". A message later obtained by federal authorities from Alexis' personal computing devices said, "Ultra low frequency attack is what I've been subject to for the last 3 months. And to be perfectly honest, that is what has driven me to this." On August 4, 2013, naval police were called to Alexis' hotel at Naval Station Newport and found that he had "taken apart his bed, believing someone was hiding under it, and observed that Alexis had taped a microphone to the ceiling to record the voices of people that were following him". At the time of the incident, he was working for the contractor at the base.

In the United States Capitol shooting incident (2013) on October 3, 2013 in Washington, D.C. Miriam Carey, 34, an unarmed African American dental hygienist from Stamford, Connecticut, attempted to drive through a White House security checkpoint in her black Infiniti G37 coupe, struck a U.S. Secret Service officer, and was chased by the Secret Service to the United States Capitol where she was fatally shot by law enforcement officers. A young child, Carey's daughter, was found unharmed in the car after it was ultimately stopped. Carey had told police in December 2012 that she thought Obama was eavesdropping on her and the government was electronically monitoring her house, and she believed she was some kind of a prophet.

On November 20, 2014, a gunman, identified as 31-year-old Myron May, shot an employee and two students at Strozier Library on the university campus shortly after midnight. He was a lawyer and an alumnus of the university, who was obsessed with targeted individual conspiracy theories and believed that the U.S. government was watching him. He was fatally shot by responding police officers after he shooting at them outside Strozier Library. After the shooting, it was revealed that May had mailed a total of ten packages to friends throughout the country beforehand; the contents of the packages are unknown. Before the attack, May shared on Facebook a Google search with the words “Targeted individuals” typed into the search box. He had also posted a video clip from the television show Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura with a man who is claimed “put together the technology that allows the government to transmit thoughts and voices into the heads of Americans.” In a series of communications and and phone calls, May told his friends that believed "stalkers" were harassing him from the government, and a "direct energy weapon" was being used to hurt him. He told friends to expect packages that would "expose" the conspiracy that tormented him.


 * Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of fringe conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At best, the items are about people who claim or rumored to have claimed electronic harassment, not about electronic harassment itself. Their claims are suspect. I don't see PressTV as a RS in this matter. Iran has much to gain by getting such a claim into conspiracy theorist circles. Nothing here. This doesn't belong in the article. Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this mass of at best tangentially relevant material is WP:UNDUE. Looie496 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article
The article page for this issue should be assessed as high importance in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. This means that a massive rewrite and merge with similar articles may be needed. The topic must be specific and clearly identify both the medical and legal necessity and victim's awareness perspective without infringing upon the rights of either aurguementation.

Note to authors: It is not encyclopdic intent to determine if the topic exists, but instead to report when such events must be administered by their genius.

Below are links to articles that contribute directly to the argument of if this situation is a legitimate treatable condition or if it is a form of medical tort or malpractice.

Medical and Legal Perspective

 * Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States): Represents workers rights and occupational safety standards.
 * Performance rights organisation An agency established to represent the arts and media industry.
 * Transparency (behavior): Establishes the bridgework between social and consumer relations
 * Administration: The standing definition of normalcy and management.
 * UL (safety organization): A global safety assurance and standards organization.
 * Risk management: A universal insurance principle of inclusion by corporate responsibility.
 * Social control theory: A theory of social studies that supports exploitation of social process.
 * House arrest: In the justice system; an electronic monitoring of released parties; probation.
 * Doctor–patient relationship: A contentious and consenting agreement of treatment.
 * Incapacitation (penology): A method of proactively detaining a person or group in accordance with law.
 * Ambulance: An emergency response and medical monitoring vehicle. See also; Paramedics
 * Health care reform in the United States
 * Mandate

Consumer Awareness Perspective

 * Public-order crime: The systemic disruption of normalcy in a society.
 * Breach of confidence: (see also; Securities exchange In tort law, the instance of disclosing confidential and trade secrets, usually for profit.
 * Denial of service attack: A computer network blackout due to dispute or liability.
 * Malpractice: Abuse sustained in the auspiciousness of transparency during an administration or treatment.
 * Discrimination: A usually defensive response against another which creates bias, stress and mental duress.
 * Suicide: The termination of life from one's own cognizance or accord; may be medically induced or voluntary.
 * Apartheid: A defunct legislative system defined as legalized discrimination; typically in ethnic cleansing cases.
 * Ostracism: The systematic expulsion or nullification of citizenship, rights and religious disposition.
 * Persecution: The instance in sociophysics in which a group of individuals are isolated for reasons of conjecture or exploit; usually religious.
 * Political repression: A character assassination of an individual or group for political purposes.
 * Euthanasia: A mode of benevolence in which human life is expunged to prevent further suffering and impoverished conditions.


 * Panopticon: A structural layout which allows detained parties to be monitored singularly using a minimum supervision of staff.

These articles help differentiate contemporary medical practice and misconceptions and provides evidential referencing for legitimate civil solutions.

It should be noted that this revision must be approached with an up range perspective, each author specializing under a particular genius; troubleshooting only authentically referenced citations, designated as being either for the medical and legal community (practice) or as a victim awareness (consumer) topic.

The revision must be administer meritocratically; meaning that the original integrity of each author must be protected by means of creating a project sandbox to store the original completed article from which existing authors may revise their content as a genius within the new article template.

According to Wikipedia guidelines for Good Article merit; infoboxes, tables and classic doctoral thesis structure outline must be used to improve this article's readability. This includes links to peer reviewed articles, troubleshooting issues with minimal speculation and preserving the integrity of both institutional (practice) and civil (consumer) rights.

For general reference, it is proposed that the new project page be merged as a sub-project with the existing WikiProject Sociology project. Naming and creation of such is subject to a popular vote of the original collective authors of this article page.

Habatchii


 * Let me just note that any changes to this article need to be based on reputable published sources. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And I fail to see a connection between the belief that one is being harassed with electromagnetic waves and the linked articles. Underwriters Laboratories? Apartheid? Health care reform in the United States? Just... what? Kolbasz (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where to start...
 * "The article page for this issue should be assessed as high importance in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines." Which guidelines would that be?
 * "the argument of if this situation is a legitimate treatable condition or if it is a form of medical tort or malpractice." Umm. Neither?
 * "Below are links to articles that contribute directly to the argument..." No, we need reliable sources that directly and explicitly discuss electronic harassment. Pulling material from articles that we think may be somehow related is WP:SYNTHESIS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. There is nothing whatsoever in the article to suggest that most of the proposed links have anything to do with the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a timeline for the article's candidacy/nomination? Habatchii (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No - there is no timeline for anything, until somebody nominates the article - at which point, it will almost certainly be rejected. Meanwhile, could you please explain why you think adding completely irrelevant material would help make this a 'good article'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Breach of confidence: (see also; Securities exchange In tort law, the instance of disclosing confidential and trade secrets, usually for profit. This could also be considered "disruptive" editing. Sorry about the puppetry statement, I still would like to make this into a good article. Gotta go, ADMINONSHOULDER_Habatchii (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What could be considered disruptive editing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Its definition
I think the basic definition could be improved. It says: "Electronic harassment is the alleged use of electromagnetic waves to harass a victim", but by consulting the references it's clear that:
 * it's not about alleged devices that exclusively make use of electromagnetic waves, thus we would be better using the term Directed-energy weapons (indeed this term does appear)
 * it's also about torture because the claims denote control over the alleged victim and the unability to defend, rather than something that disturbs, upsets, or constitutes a threat (indeed the term "torture" does appear)
 * it's an alleged covert activity because it entirely belongs to secrecy being that hidden identities and locations, and invisible and silent "bullets" are allegedly involved (indeed the term "covert" does appear)

Thus I think it would be better to state that "Electronic harassment is the alleged use of Directed-energy weapons to covertly harass and torture a victim".

I think the term "harassment" is preferred over "torture" because it helps denoting there's no physical restreinment involved as in the popular sense of torture, yet by definition, what we are naming only with the term "harassment", is described as and even called "torture" also. Think about the term Organized crime for example: it is called so, but we know it does not refer to "any crime which requires organization" (ex. a gang robbing a bank). Indeed the basic definition of the "Organized crime" article states it is about highly centralized groups. By consulting the references it looks like the claims of electronic harassment describe it as starting as harassment and eventually becoming torture, thus why it was named "Electronic torture harassment", I think.

A few hours ago I tried editing but I guess someone thought to call an admin to have me warned of edit warring. I'm told I should have reached consensus here on the talk page first. Really? I mean, these have nothing to do with the consensus, do they? They don't affect the validity of the consensus's standpoint. Clinicallytested (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The topic of this article is a delusional belief. It isn't about 'torture', because there is no evidence that such torture is occurring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Typo: ".. thus why it was named Electronic harassment". Clinicallytested (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense at all. I hope you have something more appropriate to criticize my comment. I already wrote that my proposed changes do not affect the validity of the consensus' standpoint. Why are you acting irrationally defensive? Clinicallytested (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm interested in a discussion regarding 'rationality', I'll find someone qualified to discuss the subject. Meanwhile, we aren't going to add your nonsense about 'torture', 'invisible bullets' and the rest to the article. Nobody has been tortured, and we have no reason to engage in facile hyperbole just to suit the obsessions of delusional fanatics. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dingbat's forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you just admit you're being irrational??????? Then why are you even commenting? Why are you saying I did propose to add 'invisible bullets'? Are you able to elaborate the reason you think adding 'torture' is wrong, other than with the false allegation that it "suits the obsessions of delusional fanatics"? Also, what is the "facile hyperbole" you are talking about? Consider I don't have telepathic powers. It looks as you consider yourself a valuable person, which is admirable I guess, but myself I'm really considering the chance you have both too much free time and a bad attitude. Clinicallytested (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This article will comply with Wikipedia policies. We are not going to add delusional drivel about 'torture' to suit your deranged obsessions - add it again, and I will be requesting that you be blocked indefinitely - which given your past editing history looks like a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all for wikipedia policies but again, I do not understand the sense of your criticism. Please chill down, realize I haven't got time to entertain myself with anyone who's not willing to be productive, and then please start being productive (if you are capable of doing so, since I'm still looking to read anything productive of you). Really, what do you mean with "suits the obsessions of delusional fanatics"? If you mean:
 * they are true (my proposed changes) are right but they are bad for their mental status because they encourage their beliefs, I would answer you can't raise yourself over the scope of wikipedia which is to bring knowledge, choosing instead to think that you can decide what is good or bad for these people. I mean, it could be that using the stronger term 'torture' some mental health physicians decide to cure them. Also, if we had to consider other people's well being wikipedia would be a joke, not an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not a doctor. What are you talking about?
 * on the other hand if you are referring to me as a delusional fanatic looking to suit obsessions, I can only say that firstly it has nothing to do with editing wikipedia, does it? It means literally nothing. You are supposed to comment my suggestions on the article (which I fairly outlined with care), not to resort to personal attacks against my person! And secondly, conveying the chance that you care about my personal mental health, and for what it's worth (nothing), I'm not a delusional fanatic. So again, what are you talking about?
 * Ah ah ah, everybody is a psychologist nowadays, think about the popular expressions "You are crazy", "You are insane". I almost think I understand where you're coming from, too bad that attitude is of no use within wikipedia.
 * Concluding, please consider (again) that I'm not telepathic thus unfortunately you are required an effort to elaborate your position. And just for the sake of it, I'm wondering who is the one between me and you who should report to the admins. Uhmmm... Clinicallytested (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am 'required' to do nothing. And if you think that reporting me to the admins will further your cause, feel free to do so - I could do with a laugh. Otherwise, I have said all that needs to be said here - if you lack the ability to comprehend it, that's your problem, not mine... AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Uhmmm... you are turning into a joke, do you realize that? It's not me threatening to report to admins. When is it that you will be able to generate something other than attacking me (whether taking administrative resolutions or on a personal level)???? Something productive, at least something that complies with wikipedia?? When is it? Do you realize I'm doing the work for you by elaborating your own position?????


 * Again, keep in mind that firstly I have no time to play with you, and secondly that I'm not telepathic thus you're required to elaborate your position or abruptly stop commenting here.


 * By the way, another typo by me (I do write a tad more than you, and most importantly I put efforts into elaborating): on the first bullet instead of "they are true but.." I meant "they (my proposed changes) are right but..". Clinicallytested (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I waited more than 24 hours but no reply, yet I decided for no WP:BOLD.
 * So it looks as after a few comments AndyTheGrump (the only one replying as of yet) fades out of the talk page.
 * He avoids elaborating, avoids logic, and even threatens to have me blocked. It's like if it's him who did open the section, not me. His attitude is simply hostile.
 * As I see it, this is an abstract of how the discussion evolved. I'm eager to recognize failures (if any) on my side.
 * - I wrote "Judging by the sources, the expression (2+2=4) is correct, anyone agrees?".
 * - He replies "Wrong, you are implying the number zero does not exist".
 * - So I reply "That doesn't make sense, (2+2=4) does not imply that".
 * - He replies "You are delusional trying to prove zero does not exist. And if you edit I'm going to request you be blocked forever".
 * - So I reply "You are not supposed to attack me but elaborate. Do you care to elaborate?".
 * - And he goes "I'm not required to elaborate - I already explained myself, if you don't comprehend that's your problem, not mine".
 * He asserts I'm the one in breach of policies but to me it looks it's him (which is typical I guess) thus the discussion is going nowhere.
 * However, I wait still for a healthy debate on the proposed content. Clinicallytested (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTFORUM. As you have not provided WP:RS for your unacceptable edits, they will not be used. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 11:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is quite harsh of you to say, since other than describing the reasons why my suggestions should be used, I clearly pointed to the references from the very start. Everyone can access those references on the article page thus there was no reason to link them.
 * So, do you mean you want me to dissect them for you instead? That will result in a lengthy yet necessary comment at this point, which I would have done before if only Andy did ask instead of behaving so irrationally hostile. About WP:NOTFORUM, I was just trying to be open towards understanding his point (being that he was the only replier before you came in) and recognizing any failure on my side during our discussion, while showing no interest to appeal to admins for his behaviour. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Clinicallytested's proposed edits to add "torture" and "covert" to the lead sentence. "Harass" describes and summarizes the topic adequately per the sources used in the article. It may be appropriate if at some point we come upon reliable independent sources that provide in-depth discussion of these concepts as related to this topic. For all the behavioral complaints about another editor listed above, WP:AN/I is the appropriate venue for those, not this Talk page.- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You ask for in-depth discussion of my suggestions from other sources when all that's needed is to consult the references of the article: we clearly disagree on how to interpret the references, or is it you're all in bad faith? It's true I was blocked 6 months ago trying to edit this same article, but I was totally unexperienced (my first ever edits), it was a long time ago and after that time I showed no behaviour involving being unaware of the policies or disruptive editing again (indeed I even made a successfull minor edit to this article 4 months ago). I'm assuming good faith thus I will go in-depth on my suggestions as you politely ask by dissecting the references.
 * As replied to Roxy, I was looking to understand Andy's point (being that he was the only replier before you both came in) and recognize any failure on my side during our discussion by stimulating other editors' comments, while showing no interest to appeal to admins for his behaviour. I was explaining the issue (Andy's illogicity) yet being self-critical, not conveying WP:AN/I although it probably is what should be done, thank you. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not asking you to dissect sources. I'm saying that the existing sources do not provide in-depth discussion of the topic's relation to "torture","directed-energy weapons" and "covert" that would justify these things being emphasized in the article lead. By "in-depth discussion" I mean that the sources need to treat these things as more than a passing mention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We obviously rely on different criterions to differentiate between an "accurate information" and a "passing mention". We will only be able to reach a shared solution to this debate by dissecting the sources and debating on that, rather than by debating on how we interpret them, right? WP:EXHAUST
 * Sure you did not explicitly ask me to dissect the sources, but since you clearly and politely implied the issue is about our different interpration of the sources, I implied you asked me for their dissection. Are you letting me know you woud have preferred me first asking you "Do you want me to dissect them?" and wait for your reply, rather than directly moving to the next phase???? Clinicallytested (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is clearly against your proposed changes. There is no need to 'dissect' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I already told you to abruptly stop commenting if you are not willing to be constructive. You are being | disruptive, and your sterile comradeship is repelling. Clinicallytested (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that consensus is against you is not disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what you wrote:
 * I already told you I have no time to play with you, Andy. Please avoid tip-tapping nonsense on the keyboard again. Clinicallytested (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against you, move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another sterile example of comradeship. Wikipedia doesn't work with the majority rule, polling is not a substitute for discussion as per WP:VOTE. I suspect WP:CANVASS here. Consensus is violating NPOV because it does not reflect the references (I will demonstrate this nextly with my dissection). You are being | disruptive, yet you're lucky I don't intend to invest my time in informing the admins at this point in time. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your first constructive comment since I opened this section: two words. Please, mind your next ones (if any). And if you can't elaborate more just go for other two words' comments (but always constructive ones). Thank you. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my 'please do' comment was in response to your suggestion that you might 'inform the admins'. I can see no evidence whatsoever that anyone is the slightest bit interested in your 'dissection'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I wrote "I do not intend to.." which is exactly the opposite. I already told you more than once that I do not possess telepathic powers (this is something you really should work on if you are willing to communicate, both online and in real life actually). Second, I wouldn't be so confident as you act to be about taking admins in, given your persistent disruptive behaviour. Third, the amount of interest you claim to see and/or others claim to show has nothing to do with editing wikipedia, especially in our case where | disruption and sterile comradeship are embraced so openly. So again, please avoid disruptive nonsense, stop relying on comradeship, and genuinely go back to two words' comments (but you need to be constructive even if they're just two words), will you? Clinicallytested (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is not a forum for 'dissecting' anything. Please do take this up at WP:ANI, be sure to inform everyone you take to ANI when you do.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to be funny? NPOV is not going to be violated just because you don't have a will to discuss the references. Stop being | disruptive and stop embracing sterile comradeship. Keep your nonsense for when I show my dissection (aka my interpretation of the references). What's all this resistance towards the content of the references???? Clinicallytested (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change article content, please provide reliable sources as a basis for the discussion of the changes. Wikipedia article talk pages are not the place for lengthy discussions of wikipedians' opinions on article subject or about each other. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)