Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Harassment (anti-personnel sense)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. mikka (t) 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment (anti-personnel sense)
More tinfoil-hattery, bearing a remarkable resemblence to gang stalking and other similar recently-created pages. Either there's a group of people working in concert on these, or there's one person using a lot of different proxies. Delete: original research (to say the least). -- The Anome 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes to delete

 * Delete, per Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, conspiration theory. Radiation can influence behavior in humans, but the article provides no source for the claim that it is possible to harass someone using radiation by elliciting specific behavior in the target. JoaoRicardotalk 02:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and other gang stalking pages: OR. Pavel Vozenilek 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No useful content. Andrewa 05:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.; part of gand`g stalking. mikka (t) 01:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definitely conspiracy theory. Seems to be original research -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original nonsense. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes to merge
seems conspiracy theory-ish. Possibly Merge. If not, then the article should be edited because it seems kinda biased. --TaeKwonTimmy 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes to keep

 * Keep If the 'delete' voters will look into the five electronic weapons I describe in the article, they will see that I am making no claims about these readily available weapons which do not legitimately arise from the technology.  Simply saying these weapons don't perform as claimed is not sufficient.  For example, the Dr. Joseph Sharp voice-to-skull (Army V2K) technology is described in the 1975 issue of the journal "American Psychologist", article titled "Microwaves and Behavior" by Dr. Don Justesen.

The LIDA machine, together with its U.S. custodian, the late Dr. Ross Adey, at the Loma Linda, California Veterans Hospital research wing, is shown in an Associated Press photo. Was demonstrated some years ago on CNN.

I have personally built ten copies of the Dr. Oliver Lowery Silent Sound device, which anyone with moderate electronics skills can do. The U.S. patent, 5,159,703, amply provides backup to the silent sound technology.

The fact that hypnosis works I don't need to provide backup for. If you can feed speech into someone's subconscious without them hearing it, many people can be hypnotized that way.

I telephoned a manufacturer of through clothing (and through non-conductive wall) radar and was told that I could purchase a unit if I had the cash (at that time the price was around $100,000 which I could not afford, but the unit was available to anyone.)

Such technology can be had by anyone with the money, and that it can cause extremely debilitating effects. I do not specifically claim "mind control" with this equipment. One does not need to do "mind control" to destroy a target's ability to earn a living and quality of life.

The sheer importance of the public's need and right to know about this technology outweighs the arguments of the objectors above.

Eleanor White, professional engineer, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven1 (talk • contribs)


 * I have read the website cited there, which has Justesen's article (or what it claims is Justesen's article). It is a secondary source. He simply mentions another study that proved this; he didn't prove it himself. I was unable to find references for this other study on the web, and I don't have access to my university's library at this moment. I would appreciate if the authors of this article could provide primary sources with the appropriate citation standards. Also, please note that anecdotal evidence is usually regarded as very poor evidence, or even no evidence at all. JoaoRicardotalk 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEPThere are plenty of people claiming to be targets of this technology and there are plenty of patents proving that, in fact, these weapons are available to anyone with the know-how to build them. If you look on www.mikrowellenterror.de/english you will get a better pro argument than any I have the time or space to give you here. There is now a book by noted author Gloria Naylor which tells one persons story of this type of crime being perpetrated on an innocent person for no good reason. That book is called "1996". Here is a webpage with alot of technical references to the types of equipment that are declassified -www.geocities.com/free_united_states

And I agree with the above statement which states the importance of these weapons being exposed to the general public in order to give people a chance to defend themselves in the future. Knowledge is power and at the moment only the perpetrators of the crime and their victims are aware of this crime activity.

T.Josephine - a person who knows too well about this crime, U.S. citizen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.53.212 (talk • contribs)

Keep ... Keep this article as it explains some of the situations that a target of Voice To Skull is subjected too.

Thanks '''Kamran Naqvi www.voicetoskull.com''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.102.54 (talk • contribs) JoaoRicardotalk 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep In books such as "How to get Even with Anyone" harassing electronics may be ordered for as little as $25 (acoustic devices). To imagine that such devices are on sale and NOT in usage is inane. Man has never invented a weapon he did not use. They 1. EXIST 2. Are easily available to the public, either for purchase or through instruction on how to make your own and 3. in ever growing, common usage. Since these devices are designed exclusively to harass, it follows that harassment is therefore being done with them. V. Cutler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.178.195 (talk • contribs) JoaoRicardotalk 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep (read again: KEEP!!!) - message from John Allman, UK

The "electronic harassment" Wikipedia entry a few people apparently want deleted (offering their feable reasons so tersely and ill-informedly that it's simply not worth my effort refuting them) strikes me as quite a reasonable introduction to the underpublicised topic of "electronic harassment", though I'd galdy have helped the author prepare something even MORE scholarly, if she'd been aiming at printed publication in (say) The Encyclopedia Britannica.

Removing Wikipedia documentation of the "electronic harassment" topic can only help to keep this tort/crime as underpublicised as it has been, ever since citizens first began to report it, more decades ago than much of the general public is aware.

Whose interests would be served by suppressing or reclassifying this information in the manner which a handful of people are now proposing? Not those of anybody who wasn't up to some kind of mischief, that's for sure! Would the interests be harmed of anybody whose interests deserved to be protected, by "letting sleeping dogs lie"? Of course not! The threatened Wikipedia status quo is utterly HARMLESS, except to those bent upon inflicting harm on others, with enhanced deniabilty and impunity.

Since there are present political moves afoot to introduce legislation in the USA on the very subject of "electronic harassment", and legislation is already in place in other jurisdictions, it would be unaccetably politically partisan on Wikipedia's part to suppress publicity of the electonic harassment topic, as proposed. After all, USA Senators and Congressmen (or, say, their European counterparts - France presently taking the lead in its Parliamentary opposition to electonic harassment) and (more important) voters in every demnocracy in the world, will be bound to want to look up what "electronic harassment" is, or is claimed to be, every time the phrase is used in draft legislation in their own jurisdictions.

A decision on Wikipedia's part implicitly to take one side rather than another in the ongoing and imminently to be escalated political debate, in such an obvious way, is not the sort of decision that any self-respecting "encyclopedia" in a free society should take, however great the pressure exerted from proponents of one side of the political debate. Such a decision would jeopardise Wikipedia's public reputation for political independence. It would infringe freedom of speech. As Augustine of Hippo put it, AVDI ALTERAM PARTEM - hear the other side - of EVERY contested issue.

Besides, perhaps those clamouring for deletion of "electronic harassment" and "gang stalking" entries, their derogatory renaming, or their merging (as though the original author of both entries claimed the phenoma were INVARIABLY linked, which she didn't), are acting, knowingly or complicitly, on behalf of those with contrary vested interests. (Mine is not the only mind which this sinister possibility has crossed.)

I happen to be somebody deeply concerned about e-harassment, but that does not invalidate the following primary argument - an OBJECTIVE argument - for retaining the status quo. It is essentially the same argument that I used when defending the retention of the Gang Stalking entry, just a few days ago.

On principle, I would cheerfully oppose, for the identical primary reason, the censorship of a Wikipedia article on so-called "Astrology", if I learnt that this was proposed, meaning in this case micro-Astrology, the form that modern Astrology usually takes, and which is peddled commercially as an effective means of personal fortune-telling.

I regard Astrology in this sense as a hoax and a pseudoscience. I wish that so many people weren't silly enough to believe in such "Astrology", especially far too many recent world leaders guilty of making some very poor decisions during past centuries, after consulting so-called "Astrolgers". But I would NEVER seek to defend a decision on the part of Wikipedia to obstruct members of the general public from discovering on Wikipedia what those daft enought to believe in this so-called "Astrology" meant by the term! That's simply not a job for an encyclopedia to take upon itself, much as I disbelieve in such "Astrology" MYSELF, with all the conviction that I have reluctantly come to believe, and to engage in militant opposition to, so-called "electronic harassment".

I offer for your consideration the following quote from a politician opposed to the class of weaponry that is within the class most plausibly deployed during electronic harassment, and which falls squarely within the general class of "manipulation" weapons, which the European Parliament specfically said it wanted banned (development AND deployment thereof!), six years ago, in Paragraph 27 of Resolution A4-0005/99 - q.v. at http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=DOCPV&APP=PV2&LANGUE=EN&SDOCTA=8&TXTLST=1&POS=1&Type_Doc=RESOL&TPV=DEF&DATE=280199&PrgPrev=TYPEF@A4|PRG@QUERY|APP@PV2|FILE@BIBLIO99|NedUMERO@5|YEAR@99|PLAGE@1&TYPEF=A4&NUMB=1&DATEF=990128

As recently as 2004, Dr Caroline Lucas MEP (UK, Green Party) wrote, on her own behalf and that of her British colleague Jean Lambert MEP, as follows, here quoted with implied permission, since she made her comments in the public domain, and has been aware often (without objecting) that I have been quoting her comments as I have abridged them, since shortly after the 2004 Labour Party Conference in the UK.

"Electro-Magnetic (EM) weapons are one of the newest and most serious military developments in the world today. Enormous secrecy surrounds their development … Unless this development is stopped, we are entering an Orwellian '1984' type scenario, which could potentially permanently transfer enormous power to those in control of the technology. … We regard the unsuccessful attempts in the 70s … to have these weapons controlled by a UN Convention as having been a major missed opportunity, which has now led to a new arms race in this field. We have sought to renew the attempt … to outlaw these weapons and the research that leads to them, primarily that concerning external manipulation of the human central nervous system."

Dr Lucas documents, in a quote I have abridged above only slightly, and without distorting her meaning at all, a problem about which thousands of people worldwide have been campaigning for decades now, politically and otherwise. A number of such complainants fall victim to psychiatric stalking, merely for holding beliefs that might not even be mistaken to any extent, which they adopt to create a framework that makes sense to them of tangible experiences ton which they are able to testify, under oath if called upon to do so, that they actually experience, some of which experience is physically painful, and almost all of which is psychologically distressing.

I have recently founded a charity primarly to conduct resaerch into this very topic and to provide help for alleged victims of new techniques of torture and harassment, such as are documented in the "electonic harassment" entry that some would like Wikipedia to remove, if it succombs to such pressure from the victims' adversaries and their complicit or ill-informed advocates.

I have stood three times for political office this year alone, in part to get the subject of "electronic harassmanet" discussed rationally, in the public arena, as an electoral issue, and in part to challenge the failures of supposed "democracies" that have made it necessary to make such stands. Please see http://www.AllianceForChange.co.uk.

"Electronic harassment", the phrase some would like Wikipedia to delete, is rapidly becoming the de facto most-favoured phrase for the genre of abuse which the general public has been using increasingly, when attempting to describe succinctly a problem with thousands of alleged victims worldwide, most of whom have no classical symtoms whatsoever of any mental illness.

A phrase such as "electronic harassment" this much in vogue surey merits an encylcopedia entry, if only because of the ubiquity of the use of the phrase, even amongst sceptics as to the phenomenon's very existence, whose scepticism ought to be cured easily enough by more open-minded research. It is the favoured phrase we used during seventeen meetings last October in Washington DC, with Senators, Congressmen, and their Legislative Assistants, eleven of which meetings I was privileged to attend personally, despite not even being a USA citizen myself. We were invited at every meeting I attended to draft legislation that addressed the very problem spme would like Wikipedia no longer to document, "electronic harassment", whose Wikipedia entry some people would co-incidentally like you to delete, barely a week or so before the date by which the draft legislation we were asked to draft is expected by those US legislators amd their aides we aproached. Go figure!

Wikipedia will discredit itself totally by failing to remain strictly neutral in the cases of contentious issues now in the political arena in the USA, France, Russia, the European Parliament and so-on, like e-harrassment and gang-stalking (which sometimes coincide, but not, in my experience, always) that our present day political activism is proving effective at making political "hot potatoes", worldwide. Adequate neutrality here consists of letting the deletion-candidate entry STAND, as is, without any disruptive or implicitly derogative name change, and allowing those who dispute the facts asserted in the entries that they want you to delete to have their own dissenting say, without empowering them to silence US.

John Allman +44 1423 797693 (UK landline) +44 7930 519793 (UK cellphone) http://www.thatfund.org (founder and secretary) http://www.AllianceForChange.co.uk (convenor) http://www.Slavery.org.uk / http://www.ExodusNow.com / http://www.BanMindWeapons.com (3 identical sites) http://www.sysos.co.uk/John_Allman_CV2005-12-21-doc (my CV, with links to accademic credentials)

PS The URL for the US DoD Military Thesaurus entry on V2K weapons other KEEP prononents have mentioned is http://call.army.mil/products/thesaur_e/00016275.asp (q.v. ASAP).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.