Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present Electronic_harassment is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Working through the Mind Games article for instances that support my position that the EH article should be written as an open question as to whether there is real targeting happening, not just delusions, extracts from the first few paragraphs say: "IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. .....At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.

Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.

The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.

'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"

The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence is too much. Seriously though the article acknowledges the experience of voices etc is real. There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used. (and the second is important - we would need both) Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the WP sense here. We have an WP:SPA editor pushing a WP:FRINGE idea, and everyone else telling this editor to please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP, a polite but inexperienced WP:SPA, has been told many times by experienced editors that this will simply not fly, but unfortunately has failed to understand. I'm afraid that Jed is coming from an In-Universe POV, and the crowbar of understanding is so far simply not working. We need a bigger crowbar, and a very firm foundation for the fulcrum. Guy's essay ought to help, and WP:OUCH may also be pertinent. I, on the other hand, think it may be too late. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to all: I am not an SPA. I have 3 separate areas of interest and experience, however I have only done two edits in WP in the 'electronic harassment' article. Both edits are now gone so I have effectively done none. For now I only have limited time for participation and decided to use it to attempt to get that article NPOV rather than 100% weight to the psychiatric opinion and 0% weight to the claims of TIs. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact in that way is to entirely negate the claims of TIs, which seems inappropriate. I am only attempting to integrate the view of the Washington Post article Mind Games which gives the TI claims a 'might be something in it'. I think those claims should be described as a conspiracy theory (although I would prefer conspiracy belief as they are not seeming to come at it from a theoretical perspective, but more from an attempt to describe weird experiences). To pitch the article as psychiatric opinion vs TI conspiracy theory is not to push a fringe idea as is claimed that I am doing. TIs seem to be always willing to admit that they have no hard evidence but nevertheless their claims are gaining considerable traction in alternative mass media. e.g. Coast to Coast AM, Jessie Ventura. So it seems that Alternative View - TIs Conspiracy Theory, or some such, would be appropriate, and not Fringe Delusion.

The article WP:1AM is interesting, but that has not been the situation for long. There have been many other editors on my side of the debate contributing to the Talk page, and who have given up in frustration at the immovable block of editors insisting that TI claims MUST be described as definitely delusions. My attempts to set up mediation only resulted in a fake mediation which was closed before I had the chance to reply. Yes, I was slow to get back to the mediation, but they should be fully aware by now that I only contribute every 2-3 days.

As to the point by jytdog "There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used." The 'Mind Games' article goes in depth into the question of technology and the possibility that something like an extension of the MKUltra project has been in operation since MKUltra was exposed and closed down. The latter point is consistent with the WP article Project MKUltra section 12 Aftermath [[1]] Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart It doesn't matter how reasonably well you argue. As stiff as it is, this article (as well as others involving Government crimes) are in the hands of conservative groups, probably a joint of real undercover agents (would you ever believe wikipedia had undercover agents editing it?.. I still have problems believing this but I'm trying to not exclude it) and wannabes trying to "do the work better". Either that, or it's a matter of fact that the vast majority of people cannot accept the chance that Federal agencies are still onto MKUltra and COINTELPRO alike programs. Everyone is entiteld to their opinion and, to quote a good one, "I would give my life to protect your right to have one", but hey.. sources speak clear at loads that Electronic harassment is an open question, not a verified illness. I'm sorry if you feel offended but I really have no personal hate towards any of you thus I don't consider it a personal attack (not to mention I'm doing it for a better wikipedia). This article should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE because indeed it is a matter of behavior in a too disputed argument. It's so disputed that even opening a case at WP:MEDCOM would ultimately be justifiable. Specifically WP:Civil POV pushing is what I broadly would invite to look into, but the problem sets immediatly as: how can ANI, AE and MEDCOM be free of "whitewashing agents" looking to basically protect their reputation?

The editors involved in the writing of this article are generally not looking to discuss, they are whether purpotedly or not willfull in coordinating denial over the chance Electronic harassment is an open question which, according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it results as such. Yet we have this undercover conservative editors and admins looking after their clerk editing wikipedia reputation, denying vital info that could even alleviate the pain possible victims may be really going through the way it is claimed, which soundss absolutely detestable and repugnant. The way the article is written is unacceptable considering the many sources available. Also every source keeps on being rejected with inconsiderate nonchalance and often bad faith. About bad faith for example, how can you consider alien abductions notable enough to be compiled into such a biased article? How can you compare the chance of State terrorism with that of extraterrestrials abducting humans? Why are you so keen on trying to fool us (editors and especially readers), regular unknown people, simple internet users that never did you any wrong? Let's face it, building 7 could not come down the way we are told. And neither the twins. I must be taking myself too seriously in trying to subvert this specific wikipedia censorship.. but the point I guess, is that I always related to knowledge with pure openness, thus it must hurt to see wikipedia being gamed by a bunch of who knows who nobodies.

However, I'm not here just to shout wishy-washy, I would like to point to the lack of hystorical perspective, mentioned with other words by Jed Stuart in the above comment. There have been many "attempts" to correct the censoring POV of the article throughout the last months/years, but I never came accross anyone mentioning WP:RECENT, a decently important essay. WP:RECENT is spot on firstly because COINTELPRO and MKULTRA are hystorial heavy weighting notable and verified clandestine projects which should be more seriously taken into account, and secondly because fundamentally the whole present bias is based on contemporary years's mainstream news about a modern phenomena revolving around internet communities that show traits of mental illnesses. Nonetheless, various reliable sources indicate the existence of weapons meant to induce mental illnesses thus it really is a gigantic mistake to propose the mental illness theory as fact.

There would be more to discuss about, but it's just too frustrating for anyone to be maliciously outnumbered the way it happens all the time. I guess that's why the degree of incivilty is non-existent on the side of the civil (indeed) pov pushers. What about the pointlessness in WP:SPA accusations? Do you think everyone can dedicate their working day to editing an encyclopedia? Let's resume good ol' Aaron Swartz for a minute:

Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

What about that argument about pseudoscience detracting from notability?.. Have a read at what's written at the bottom of this for instance. The point with pseudoscience anyway, is like the one with comparing alien abductions to State terrorism: there are reliable sources citing the existence of these exotic weapons just as we have prove of, at least past, State terrorism (it always shows up after a while for some reason, and it's always about other countries, other cultures, other languages), while on the other hand there are no reliable sources citing the existence of extraterrestrials anywhere close enough to our planet, not to mention the abduction part. I know you will keep on stonewalling anyway, I already came to the understand there's no chance of having a un-POVed debate on this article, thus why am I trying my best to contribute to this article? Probably just because Jed is being treated unfairly. Have a good evening all. 82.59.56.100 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since mentioning sources, is this one from 2008 relevant in your opinion? Peer reviewed by a University. The author is an academic definitely in good-standing even to date and mainstream nonetheless, Kingsley Dennis. What else is needed to accept Jed's suggestion of writing the Electronic harassment page as an open question? 87.1.117.202 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What would it take for us to conclude that the reality of electronic harassment is an open question?

1. It would have to actually be an open question, which it is not. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience.
2. Your "reliable source" would have to actually say what you claim it says, which it does not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#First Monday (journal)

Might I suggest [ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/ ] as a more appropriate place for your theories? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Continual assertions that it is not an open question followed by directions to those Wikipedia policies that we are fully aware of in this discussion and are interpreting differently, says absolutely nothing. Referring to an article that is in question as to whether it is a reliable source, but which nobody has used in the EH article, is confusing the issue. It is the Washington Post article "Mind Games" which has been cited in the article and which is the basis of my opinion that the article should be written as an open question.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless 87.1.117.202 is you editing while logged out, I wasn't responding to you. 87.1.117.202 referenced the First Monday journal in the post I replied to.

As for Mind Games you have received your answer multiple times, the latest at [ Talk:Electronic harassment#open question that covert targeting could be happening? ]. One comment in that discussion stands out, and I agree with it 100%:

"Jed, you have cited that same quote from the Washington Post article on these Talk pages twice before here and here. Both times, the reasons why it does not justify giving credibility to the fringe theory have been patiently explained to you. You ask over and over again why we can't treat the topic as "an open question", and over and over again it gets explained to you. You repeatedly ask why the article can't balance psychiatrists opinions with delusional people's opinions, and it is repeatedly explained to you why our policies can't permit that. Your account is 4 years old, and your only interest on Wikipedia is this one topic. Although you have been polite about it, even politely asking the same questions over and over again is a form of WP:DISRUPTION."[2]

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we are going nowhere because this is a case of collective prolongend whitewashing (censorship), either because of unconscious (you can't accept the chance it could be happening) or conscious (wikipedia is flooded with conservative individuals who purpotedly deny the chance it could be happening) psychological mechanisms. I understand, the anxiety can be terrifying when it comes to these arguments. However, I'm gonna give the debate a chance if you wish, Guy Macon.

1. The first statement is your own opinion lacking corroboration other than pointing to a section of the WP:NPOV policy which states:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Thus the question is: what is the majority viewpoint of scientists? And if there is one: how surpassing is it compared to the minority viewpoint (in order to determine the respective weights, correct?)?

2. So you deny "my reliable source presents the chance of electronic harassment happening"? You are stating it doesn't represent the simple view proposed by Jed Stuart? Then explain to me these quotes from that source which, let me remind you, it is authored by a scientist in good-standing (actually of mainstream media good-standing nonetheless), and peer-reviewed by academics with no bias on supporting conspiratorial claims. I will bold and underline the significant parts:

Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. [..] Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. [..] The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. [..] Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. [..] Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. [..] Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. [..] What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. [..] This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.

— Kingsley, Dennis, First Monday (journal) of University of Illinois at Chicago at webaddress

.

What's your answer? Does it present it as an open question? 87.3.90.35 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My answer (and the answer of at least a dozen other experienced Wikipedia editors who have examined this) is "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Guy. Jeh (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Wikipedia is not the place for this stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And me. Mr. Dennis appears to be commenting from a different reality than the one in which we exist. You need to stoppit Jed, and all the SPA IPs that have magically appeared around this topic since you were told it will never fly. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To Guy Macon: That is the first time I have quoted that bit from the Mind Games article. The one I was being taken to task about and did end up quoting 3 times due to not being able to get editors to really discuss the issue, was the one where they state their opinion that there could be something in the accusations of covert targeting. I did quote it 3 times in the attempt to get editors to really deal with the issue instead of just repeating assertions and grandstanding as the absolute experts on Wikipedia and I a newbie should piss off or be sent to AE. I have no desire to hit your horse carcass with a stick but surely it is time to bury it.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that those wanting to state the psychiatric opinion as fact have put up no arguments to back that, just assertions that I am pushing a fringe view. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact is to contradict the first point made in the NPOV article "Avoid stating opinions as facts" . Perhaps this does not apply to a mainstream well established institution, psychiatry/psychology? In a communist or fascist regime that could easily be the case. However, Wikipedia is a product of liberal democracy and so describing the various is the standard. tolerance of different opinions, pluralism etc That rather than adopting one side of a difference of opinion. So what would it do make the change that I seek. The psychiatric/psychological view would still have most weight, my guess about 80-90%, and the not at all well established view of those who believe that they are subject to intensive covert assaults would get a foot in the door, getting about 10-20% of the weight, just a little "might be" that is all that would be. There is no proof, just a lot of people with compelling anecdotal evidence, enough to get the Washington Post to give a small slice of that considerable attention. It does say something though that my attempts to get this stated appropriately result in such a concerted effort to stop such a little change in the article in order to bring it into line with the Wikipedia policies you lot keep throwing at editors that disagree with you, and don't seem to understand yourselves. Jed Stuart (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough WP:IDHT. I'm done responding. Read the Discretionary Sanctions notice at User talk:Jed Stuart. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected more comprehensiveness. Some argumentation. Can you provide those? I think it's very important.. otherwise what's the point in being at this noticeboard nonetheless? This is on even a higher level than a Talk page, thus I suspect we should debate. What you keep on doing is stonewalling mine and Jed's suggestions. But I still have an idea of the why this happens constantly: anxiety towards these unsettling shoking circumstances is the reason, and choosing to be conservative (read as, "in denial") is the safest refuge. I have no idea on what level of your consciousness is happening, I don't know you and I'm not a psychoanalyst. But I can't pretend I don't know there's the seed of psychology here, making a certain form of ethics (the plant) grow, and that it ends producing political results (the fruits) which speciously flow into far-fetched conservative consensus.

Yes, this is about politics, and it looks even Aristotele is on mine and Jed's side, as His philosophical eternal work on politics ends declaring that

the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics

Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See [ User talk:87.6.112.110#This IP is a duck ] and [ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit filter? Range block? ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have challenged the editors block at Talk:Electronic Harassment to come here and state their case for violating NPOV as described. It seems to me they have only come here to cast aspersions on my behaviour rather than address the issue. I asked them again and here is my statement and their reply:

"So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Review Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_3, Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4, and Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_5 for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you. Please stop this sea-lioning, it's disruptive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)"

As it is a one against many there, and quite stressful, please someone convince me that I am wrong. They certainly wont. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Most all experienced editors have been on the losing side of content discussions at one time or another. We learn that we don't have to be convinced that we're "wrong," but that we do need to abide by consensus, and move on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC):

Interesting. Jed Stuart says "it is a one against many" but has not followed the advice I gave at WP:1AM... --05:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read your document again. It is clearly thought through and communicated. But, to refer to it without saying which section you are referring to gives me nothing as it describes many situations. The one I can most relate to is: "When you think there is a policy violation.In a "one-against-many" dispute, you (as the one) might be upholding a Wikipedia policy or guideline against a majority that isn't following policy. If this is the case, the one prevails over the many. The problem is that for every case where the one is upholding policy, there are at least a hundred cases* where he only thinks he is." I invited you all at EH, who seem to think I am not upholding a policy, to come and state your case. So far it has not been about that at all it has been about my behaviour, which I invite you to take me to ANI over, the appropriate place is it not? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes, I will have to move on soon. The reason that I am persisting is that what I see as the NPOV dispute effects the sense of the entire article, and will have negative impact on those vulnerable people, who are claiming to be targeted, if it continues to promote one side of the controversy and negate the other. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If then, as you claim, there is a policy violation, how then do you explain your utter failure to convince even a single other person that the policy violation exists? It certainly isn't from a lack of trying. I and others have looked at your arguments and found them to be less than compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. You all have the same perspective on the subject. Bye for now. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that I and everyone else except you have a perspective that prevents us from seeing clear policy violations. I personally have on multiple occasions removed material that I would have really liked to see stay -- if it violates Wikipedia policy, out it goes whatever my personal feelings. You simply have not made a convincing argument that any policy violations exist in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try again. Is it not true that it is a NPOV policy to "describe disputes not engage in them" and to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." . Both are prominent statements at the NPOV article. However, it says about the claims of people that they are being covertly targeted: "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis," and "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." Both statements are the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists well cited there. However, there is a growing conspiracy theory that disputes this opinion. The TI opinion and of those supporting them is that they are not deluded etc. For the article to be stated in terms that it is a fact that they are deluded is both taking a side in the dispute, resulting in lots of attempts to disrupt the article, and stating an opinion as fact. Thus the article should not say "The experiences of TIs are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders." It should say "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that the experiences of TIs are hallucinations...etc" or some such. The same for the TIs claims. They should not be stated as facts but as their opinion. I am not that good a communicator, but I think that is my best shot at it. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did indeed try again, in classic sea lion fashion. And, once again, you failed miserably, because your argument contradicts the policy (WP:NPOV) you selectively quoted. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is WP:PSCI, which clearly says:

"Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked."

I hope this helps but I know that it won't. Please drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks as you are playing the skeptical but beyond reason part and accountably, as the conspiracy is quite unbelievable at first glance, while Jed Stuart is being open minded yet reasonably because electromagnetic weapons not only are far from being pseudoscience, they are actually authorized for use since time ago. I consider pseudoscience flat earth and extraterrestrial life and parapsychology, but modern weapons why should we? Also reliable sources are all but poor in supporting the validity of electronic harassment. I'm following this debate and I agree with the open minded side. 149.254.224.221 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The issues raised at the top of this section have been addressed and consensus is against a change. Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to endlessly debate mind control or other WP:FRINGE stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not. In either case, you keep on failing by recognizing it a pseudoscientific topic which clearly it isn't. Thus what has actually been addressed? 149.254.235.50 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

yes, the issue I have raised has never been addressed by the editors at EH. I am not for one moment attempting to debate whether what TIs claim is true or not. That will play out in the mass media and relevant government processes eventually, if it is true, and if we still have democracy. I am simply attempting to get a balanced and neutral statement of the situation at present as described in the reliable sources cited. That has nothing to do with a pseudoscience. It is about claims of harassment and worse. It also has nothing to do with giving equal weight to those claims vs psychiatric opinion. You are just attempting to gag the discussion of the NPOV issue by suggesting this is becoming a forum about mind control. Since I started work on this issue it has been about one smart manoeuvre after another and none have ever put a case for stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To 149.254.224.221: False equivalency. The fact that other flat things exist is not evidence for a flat earth that violates the laws of physics. Likewise the fact that directed-energy weapons exist is is not evidence for a mind control device that violates the laws of physics. Every directed-energy weapon works by emitting some form of electromagnetic radiation, be it microwaves, infrared lasers, or X-Rays. Electromagnetic radiation is easily detected. Likewise, all of the non-energy weapons use the some sort of matter, whether it be air vibrating (acoustic weapons) germs, gas, or the kinetic energy of a bullet or bomb. NO UNDECTABLE MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. If a mind control technology did exist, I or any other competent engineer would be able to detect and measure the output of the alleged weapon, just as we can with any other weapon.

To Jed Stuart: Go away. The next time you post your theory that the professional opinions of mental-health professionals are no more valid that the untrained opinions of the delusional people they treat, I will bring this to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never posted such a theory. It is about the way the article is written not about your or my beliefs about mind control technology. That is all irrelevant. Take me to ANI then. If they are still with the basic principles of Wikipedia I will win. That will be interesting to learn about and find out. I did fully intend to leave it there, but you had to keep going with another challenge and your stuff about sea lions etc. I did check out that sea lion article, but it looked like scorpions poo, so I did not read much. As for you, you are a palaverer. Me, I am a TI supporter attempting to get the article as clear and straight as possible. There is a long way to go. Jed Stuart (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am thinking is appropriate in the EH article. It is not that the claims of TIs are of equal weight to mental-health professionals. I think the reliable sources put the view that there might be some form of covert targeting happening. Which, if there is would lead to some re-thinking by those professionals as to how to categorize and treat people who make such claims, not to TIs taking over the asylum or some such. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Neutral Point of View is a matter of WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, especially on medical claims. So it's not clear, how the article can be so supportive of the psychiatric opinion. If I read all the sources and put them in context according to content policies and guidelines and then read the article I find it embarrassing. There is no space to state the claimants of electronic harassment are delusional as a fact, not to mention tagging the article as related to pseudoscience.. it's a conspiracy theory and there's no point in fast-fowarding to debunk it. 149.254.234.126 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is that medical statements and articles in general, should reflect reliable secondary sources and scientific consensus, and instead the electronic harassment article is based on the so-called psychiatric opinion that claimants of EH are defenately delusional. There is no reliable secondary source stating so, let alone any recognized scientific consensus. On the other hand reliable secondary sources speak of claims with due detachment. The most compelling source used to support the so-called "psychiatric POV" is the paper published in a reliable journal about experimental psychiatric diagnoses which is very attentive in declaring the study was conducted on internet based communities and that it's the first of its kind, but especially it is clear in concluding the claimants are only potentially delusional. So this is basically a reliable source stating something else, and primary nonetheless. And then there are a bunch of news articles or blogs which are full of opinion content used to support medical claims, and according to WP:NEWSORG these sources are to be considered primary, generally not reliable as statements of fact (let alone medical statements). The Washington Post article cited by Jed Stuart is actually the one lacking biased opinion content, but even more the one written with greater insight and offering a neutral analytic standpoint.

Despite all this you have other reliable secondary sources speaking of it in terms of something potentially happening but which get rejected, favoring an accountable yet uncalled, against content policies and guidelines, "debunking POV". 149.254.235.157 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's good to examine the NY Times article to demonstrate the non neutral POV, as the other news or blog articles are either on the same wavelength or even worse (the blog used in the lede for medical diagnoses made in the article is not suitable according to content policies and guidelines for example). Similarly to the Washington Post's article, it lacks opinion content (bias by the author) and the publisher is a reliable one.

Albeit it is rather written from the psychiatric standpoint it's still very careful in describing the claimants mental state, indeed the author uses terms such as "some", "appears", "drawing the concern", "interest of researchers" in key sentences of the introduction, and concludes with "people who may be psychotic". The very difference with the Washington Post's article is the focus of the article, because exactly as with the primary source cited in the previous comment, the author of the NY Times article (and most of the sources cited in electronic harassment) is focused on the possible effects of internet communication on potential (or even likely) mentally ill subjects. The veracity of the claims is not the focus.

The NY Times article rather sheds a slightly brighter light on the psychiatric opinion, yet it's about something other than the claimants mental state, it's about the possible effects of internet communication. It doesn't hint there's a scientific consensus on the claimants mental state: it actually offers mutually challenging opinions in that regard. Again, surely it does supppse a likely pathological condition, but nothing more than that.

Then it is a reliable secondary source, but reliable for what indeed? It seems not for the medical diagnoses presented as a fact in electronic harassment (which even goes as far as substantially hinting this view is unchallenged on reliable sound bases, which is false). Those should be adjusted the way Jed Stuart advises, as well as the whole "debunking POV" to:

• properly use the sources already cited in the article
• embrace other reliable secondary sources offering the opposite POV (First Monday (journal) article, and the expert analysis it cites published at the military website)

To be noted is that the only source justifying the "debunking POV" is the one from Richmond yet it's far from describing a scientific consensus, which should be proved somehow in order to report medical diagnoses as fact. Also, a politician speaking in defence of the government he works for falls under a conflict of interest, and other more influencial politicians supported the opposing POV. 149.254.235.78 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Update: I wrote this comment according to last week's version of the article. In the last days a new NY Times source was added. 149.254.235.107 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So yesterday, someone added these three edits: [3] [4] [5], which go against the current consensus, yet the talk page is locked so I can't file an edit request. Can someone who's able remove them?Inmate XIII (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spamlinks and duplicated text have already been removed from those edits. As for the added news coverage of individuals claiming to be electronically harassed, best to bring up any concerns with it on the article Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)