This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic harassment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Electronic harassment is considered a delusion by many medical professionals, however there are patents at the U.S. Patent Office owned by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community proving that the technology to electronically harass people does exist. ^{[1] [2]} There are also historical events, such as the Moscow Signal incident, suggesting that electronic harassment may have been used by the United States and Soviet Union, against each other, during the Cold War. Bobduder (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These patents are not evidence that the government is secretly microwaving the brains of random citizens. We will not interpret primary sources (such as patents) to undercut reliable secondary sources, or to prop up delusions or conspiracy theories, that goes against just about every content policy we have. - MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y", and must be supported by references to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. patent office isn't a reliable source? One of them is a patent owned by the U.S. Air Force. Bobduder (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. patent office contains patents for many devices which do not exist (and indeed are impossible) such as perpetual motion machines [1]. MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it proves that the government is secretly microwaving people's brains, I said there is proof that the technologies to do it to people exist and that there are historical events, like the moscow signal, or havanna syndrome suggesting that it is possible. By the way, the U.S. Academy of Sciences stated that microwave weapons could be behind havanna syndrome.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/havana-syndrome-report/index.html Bobduder (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then this request is at best irrelevant, because /this/ article is about symptoms of delusion, not real events. MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited two real events and technologies suggesting that it could be a real thing. The wikipedia article states at the very beginning that it's a "conspiracy theory" and says that "medical professionals consider it a delusion". Why can't we include information supporting the conspiracy theory? Bobduder (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason Globe doesn't suggest the earth might be flat. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the earth is flat. There is evidence for V2K RNM DEW abuse worldwide. 2603:9001:2E02:EBC0:A888:226E:F873:4C61 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you get the NY times to write about it, so will we. Should be a big news story. Wikipedia will continue to follow the mainstream on this, as this encyclopedia is designed to do. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream has reported several times on DEW abuse. Here's one from NBC with proof it is not psychosomatic, and that according to the National Academy of Sciences Havana Syndrome was most likely a "pulsed microwave energy attack". Adding evidence that this isn't psychosomatic only adds to the breadth of the article.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-tmFJDpLuMI&pp=ygUWVjJrIHJubSBuZXcgeW9yayB0aW1lcw%3D%3D 2603:9001:2E02:EBC0:FA2B:59BA:D307:4CA (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just to note [not the New York Times, but ..]: The Washington Post, in a Sunday Magazine cover story article on January 14, 2007, wrote about victims. That article, “Mind Games”, by journalist Sharon Weinberger, appears at [text only]:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399_pf.html  ;

[ The article's 'subtitle text' was: "New on the Internet: a community of people who believe the government is beaming voices into their minds. They may be crazy, but the Pentagon has pursued a weapon that can do just that." ] HRtsFan (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS however evidence that such a capability does in fact exist, and widely available. When qoutable and presuppositional turned away in attempt of censorship by distraction and diversion. Any person of sound logic will know this, and attribute the Nuremburg code to the usage of such devices. 50.220.95.38 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not evidence of these things. Patents are primary documents; they are not evidence of function, existence, availability, or connection to the subject of this article. VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not delusion by all, Darpa has their patent up from 2010 about literally this semantisized under the guise of "medical research". Here's the link:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9d/a6/9b/656bdb717c2a4c/US20140094674A1.pdf 50.220.95.38 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that electronic harrassment isn't limited to conspiracy theories and that ganstalkers often use forms of electronic harassment. 2603:9001:2E02:EBC0:FA2B:59BA:D307:4CA (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2023 (UT

Besides WP:FRINGE, the problem is WP:SYNTH. You want to connect Electronic harassment is considered a delusion by many medical professionals with however there are patents at the U.S. Patent Office owned by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community when no reliable WP:FRIND source has indicated these two things are connected and need to be taken into consideration. And adding ...proving that the technology to electronically harass people does exist is again, not supported by any reliable source, and dubious since patent filings don't indicate that a technology will work or does exist. There are also historical events, such as the Moscow Signal incident, suggesting that electronic harassment may have been used by the United States and Soviet Union... Again, this article is about the delusion that ordinary citizens are being targeted by mind control technology. No reliable source exists that connects Moscow Signal (or Havana syndrome) to this delusion or suggests that it may not be a delusion because these incidents occurred. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the the National Academy of Sciences finding above that Havana Syndrome was most likely a pulsed energy weapon attack. I looked up directed energy weapons and law enforcement. Found a mobile version of a DEW called Silent Guardian which is marketed to civilian law enforcement and other security agencies since 2011. It actually states that it is at risk for inappropriate use because of the range. Ref: American Civil Liberties Union.

Regardless of who is at fault both of these sources exhibit evidence that electronic harrasment may not be psychosomatic. 2607:FB91:1842:D524:AC39:8277:99F0:83C9 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are being interpreted by you as evidence that claims of covert electronic harassment of ordinary citizens may not be persecutory delusions. Because my neighbor owns lawn care chemicals that are poisonous when ingested does not mean he is secretly poisoning me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't research the National Academy of Sciences finding that the victims of Havana Syndrome experienced real physical phenomenon not delusions. 2603:9001:2E02:EBC0:892B:9FE2:6A51:430B (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant to this article, which is about people with delusions of persecution. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

CHANGE: "Electronic harassment, electromagnetic torture, or psychotronic torture is the delusional belief, held by individuals who call themselves "targeted individuals" (TIs), that malicious actors are transmitting sounds and thoughts into people's heads, affecting their bodies, and harassing them generally.[1][2] The delusion often concerns government agents or crime rings and alleges that the "perpetrators" use electromagnetic radiation (such as the microwave auditory effect), radar, and surveillance techniques to carry out their goals.[1][2]"

TO: "Electronic harassment, electromagnetic torture, or psychotronic torture is the belief, held by individuals who may refer to themselves as "targeted individuals" (TIs), that malicious actors are transmitting sounds and thoughts into people's heads, affecting their bodies, and harassing them generally.[1][2] The belief often concerns government agents or crime rings and alleges that the "perpetrators" use electromagnetic radiation (such as the microwave auditory effect), radar, and surveillance techniques to carry out their goals.[1][2]

The reason for the change is because not everyone who experiences electronic harassment is delusional and claiming they all are is doing a disservice to people who are actually affected by this phenomena. There are laws written into effect and many cases of people who have been prosecuted for things like cyber stalking and electronic harassment. See my sources below. Thank you. https://www.unca.edu/storehouse/policies/1217/ https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter9/76-9-S201.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/07/10/seattle-man-prison-cyberstalking/74358201007/ https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/former-fiu-student-convicted-cyber-harassing-new-york-family Roosteronthemountain (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Change would require prior consensus. Bon courage (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roosteronthemountain: the sources you offer describe and refer to Cyberstalking. This article is about the delusional belief that government or criminals are literally controlling people's minds through technology, and our cited sources support that distinction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-6883/73736

(Copy link and paste) The weapons used radio frequencies, electric frequencies, EMF, microwaves, lasers or combinations of frequency weapons. Voice to skull )V2K ) is hearing effect caused by microwave with different frequency attached to it using victims skull bones to transmit sound directly in the head. From things I have read our specific DNA/ brain frequencies are used to attack specific person. For now you can use a tri meter to gather evidence- record videos with your name, location, time, readings from tri meter and symptoms the attack is causing. Eventually we will be able to file lawsuits so evidence is a must. Neverever0326 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would need a reliable source. Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns that the current introduction to this article does not fully comply with Wikipedia’s core content policies, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. The opening line characterizes electronic harassment as “the delusional belief” that certain harassment is happening via electromagnetic means. While the psychiatric consensus may indeed consider these claims as delusions, the article needs to reflect this view through appropriate, high-quality medical sources rather than stating it as a fact in Wikipedia’s own voice without proper attribution.

Specific Issues:

Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The introduction currently states that electronic harassment “is the delusional belief” as a flat assertion. Under NPOV, such a strong characterization of a belief as a medical condition (i.e., a delusion) should be clearly attributed to reputable medical authorities or well-established secondary sources. Without proper attribution, it sounds like Wikipedia is making a clinical judgment rather than summarizing recognized medical consensus.

Medical Reliability (MEDRS): The introduction references sources that do not appear to meet the standards set by WP:MEDRS, which recommends high-quality, secondary medical literature (e.g., review articles in reputable medical journals, established medical textbooks, or positions from recognized professional organizations) for health-related claims. Newspaper articles, primary interviews, or general websites are not sufficient for describing something as a delusional disorder, which is all that are being used to support that this is a delusional belief.

Suggested Modifications:

Attribute the Description: Instead of: “Electronic harassment ... is the delusional belief ...” Consider: “Electronic harassment, also referred to as electromagnetic or psychotronic torture, is widely described by mainstream medical and psychiatric sources as a delusional belief that malicious actors are transmitting thoughts or sounds into individuals’ minds.”

This phrasing makes it clear that the characterization of the belief as delusional comes from medical experts, not Wikipedia’s editorial voice.

Add High-Quality Sources: Replace or supplement the current references with citations from reputable medical or psychiatric journals, diagnostic manuals, or consensus statements from recognized mental health authorities. Specifically, the references supporting the delusional belief portion of the introduction uses low quality news articles, rather than any actual studies (despite the fact that one of the news article actually cites a study!).

By making these changes, the introduction would adhere more closely to NPOV and MEDRS standards, properly attribute medical judgments to qualified sources, and maintain the encyclopedic tone expected on Wikipedia. Amranu (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, watering down facts is not more neutral, it is less neutral. Wikipedia doesn't attribute facts when it would position the mainstream as just one opinion. We do not require WP:MEDRS sourcing to establish that the government is not using secret technology to beam messages into the brains of randomly selected citizens. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cite no medical sources to establish that fact however, which is what I am complaining about. You cite interviews and news articles. This violates WP:MEDRS Amranu (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PARITY. We don't hold debunking of nonsense to higher standards than people pushing nonsense. This does not violate WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the debunking of claims of mind control. I am disputing the claims that it is a fact that these people are delusional. The cited sources do not support this. There is a difference between stating there’s no reliable evidence for government mind control (a factual, non-medical claim) and labeling a belief as “delusional” (a psychiatric evaluation). The former can be shown by the lack of evidence from reliable sources. The latter should come from robust medical literature. Following WP:MEDRS and properly attributing medical characterizations is not an exercise in “watering down” but in ensuring the article is both factually accurate and policy-compliant. Amranu (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a published study that examines whether beliefs related to mind control experiences (MCEs) can be considered delusional. The study concludes they are 'likely' and 'potentially' delusional, language we should incorporate into this article. This source should meet the criteria for WP:MEDRS, but I encourage all editors to seek out additional peer-reviewed sources to support their positions. https://doi.org/10.1159/000090598

With this citation, we can update the introduction to describe these beliefs as 'likely' or 'potentially' delusional, thereby satisfying WP:MEDRS while maintaining a nuanced approach to the topic. Amranu (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a consensus for that. I disagree that we need to water down the phrasing with weasel words such as "likely" and "potentially." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require that language because we only one have one proper source for it (the linked study) and that study uses that terminology. Until that study and other sources are integrated, this article is likely in violation of WP:MEDRS. These are not "weasel words". This accurately reflects the terminology used by practitioners in the field dealing with this group. Blanket identifying a group as "delusional" without proper citations is a much bigger problem than a small update in terminology which will see this article in compliance with WP:MEDRS. Amranu (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing "required" here is a consensus. There are numerous sources throughout the article that support the statements in the current lede. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not meet the standard required by WP:MEDRS. The sources for the claim of this group being delusional are three newspaper articles and a blog post. This does not meet WP:MEDRS standards for reliable secondary sources, such as reputable journal articles or textbooks. Amranu (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think below is an adequate RfC? Thoughts?

Request for Comment: Introduction Wording and Compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS

Issue:

The current article introduction describes electronic harassment as “the delusional belief” that malicious actors use electronic means (e.g., electromagnetic waves, implanted chips) to control or harm individuals. While many editors agree that mainstream psychiatric and medical consensus regards such beliefs as unfounded or indicative of psychological pathology, there is disagreement about how this should be phrased and sourced in compliance with core Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS.

Points of Contention:

1. Medical vs. Colloquial Use of “Delusional”:

- Some editors argue that labeling these beliefs as “delusional” constitutes a medical claim, triggering WP:MEDRS and necessitating high-quality medical sources (e.g., review articles, textbooks) explicitly identifying the belief as a delusion.

- Others maintain that the term “delusional” accurately reflects the overwhelming mainstream consensus reported in reliable sources, including reputable news media citing qualified experts, and does not necessarily require a formal medical diagnosis in Wikipedia’s voice.

2. Attribution and Neutral Point of View (NPOV):

- Some editors believe the introduction should attribute the term “delusional” to recognized medical or psychiatric authorities, rather than stating it as a flat fact.

- Others argue that since no credible experts contest that the belief is delusional, attributing the consensus risks giving undue weight to fringe perspectives.

3. Source Quality (MEDRS Compliance):

- Concerned editors point out that the current references do not fully meet WP:MEDRS standards for a biomedical claim. They suggest incorporating higher-quality medical or psychiatric literature or softening language to reflect more cautious phrasing found in peer-reviewed research.

- Others believe existing reliable sources quoting medical professionals are sufficient, as the concept’s fringe nature can be addressed with sources meeting WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY.

RfC Question:

Does declaring a belief held by a group as “delusional” inherently fall under WP:MEDRS (i.e., does it require MEDRS-compliant sources to support the characterization as a “delusional” belief) and how should the introduction describe the nature of the belief in electronic harassment to best adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS?

Proposed Solutions for Discussion:

- Option A: Keep the wording “the delusional belief” without attribution, treating it as a well-established fact per mainstream consensus.

- Option B: Attribute the characterization explicitly, e.g., “…described by mainstream psychiatrists and medical experts as a delusional belief…”

- Option C: Replace “delusional” with a less clinically charged term (e.g., “unfounded” or “widely rejected”) and clarify that experts generally regard it as indicative of psychiatric disorders where high-quality sources exist.

- Option D: Incorporate high-quality, peer-reviewed medical or psychiatric sources. If these sources use cautious terminology (e.g., “likely” or “potentially” delusional), reflect that nuance in the introduction.

Please indicate which option you support (A, B, C, D) or propose an alternative. Explain your reasoning with reference to relevant policies and guidelines.

Instructions:

Participants are invited to comment below, providing policy-based arguments for their positions. After a sufficient discussion period, consensus will be determined. Amranu (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

an rfc is appropriate if there is no consensus. currently this WP:1AM and i think an uninvolved editor/admin will WP:SNOWCLOSE this as a waste of time..

even if it wasnt its too long to be useful Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt WP:SNOWCLOSE applies. The question about whether WP:MEDRS applies when labelling a group or belief delusional is an important one, and I'm not the only one that has agreed that it applies. Amranu (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who else agrees with you? Not me, in case you were counting on my support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernards.tar.gz suggested that MEDRS applies. I'm not suggesting anyone agrees with me on article changes as yet, just that there is more than one person in agreement on WP:MEDRS. Amranu (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user with 30-something edits you would do well to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TE for starters. Arguing with each and every editor who disagrees with you (some of them with decades of experience) is not going to bring about consensus. You might succeed in wearing people down via editor exhaustion, but the result won't be the change you seek. There are a number of Wikipedia admins who have a very low tolerance for WP:SPA accounts wasting the time of experienced editors with protracted WP:IDHT behavior, and the end result would likely be sanctions for disruptive editing. You got everybody's attention. Now is the time to take a step back and let experienced editors discuss the topic and allow consensus to emerge without your constant hectoring. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what Barnards.tar.gz wrote, they say that MEDRS is "relevant" and already complied with. In other words, I believe (but could be wrong) that would be yet another editor who doesn't agree with you.

Are you feeling like this is a Wikipedia:One against many ("1AM") situation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is. Where do you stand on the MEDRS question? I understand you don't necessarily agree that there should be changes to the article, but if you think MEDRS doesn't apply, why? Amranu (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this correct. I do understand why @Amranu has brought up MEDRS and I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they have done so, but I don’t agree that MEDRS requires us to make any changes to the article. Amranu, I think you are taking an overly black-and-white interpretation of MEDRS. Aside from it being a content guideline rather than a policy, the opening sentence gives the actual requirement:

Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.

All of this is complied with. The current sources are adequate for the claim they are supporting. I would absolutely agree that there are some types of biomedical information where an even higher quality source would be necessary, but this isn’t one of those, and that’s because of the total absence of reliable sources suggesting there is any kind of uncertainty or disagreement here.

I think some of the response to Amranu has been bitey. Amranu, as a new editor, it’s good that you have taken a close interest in policies and guidelines, but it’s time to drop this one. There are plenty of other articles which could benefit from improved sourcing for biomedical information, if that’s what you’re here to do. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the policy based argumentation and advice. Do you think it would be worthwhile to make a note in the article of the paradox we discussed earlier, given it's the conclusion of the only peer-reviewed study we have on the topic currently? Perhaps if not in the introduction, elsewhere in the article? Amranu (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "the only peer-reviewed study we have on the topic currently". This might be "the only peer-reviewed study that uses the WP:INUNIVERSE name for this topic". There are other peer-reviewed sources about the idea that someone uses technology (as opposed to, for example, magical powers or spiritual beings) to control people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There are TIs that do not consider themselves victim of mind control, and there are people that believe themselves to be victims of mind control that do not consider themselves to be a TI.

There are very few if any reliable studies on the TI community, as so far we have only one. Amranu (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...one that is 18 years old, and therefore not a reflection of the current "TI community" in any way. Also, it would violate MEDRS, specifically the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we are using now also face that same problem: They cite the same professor, and are about the same age. I don't see a problem using that source if we're agreeing with Barnards.tar.gz that the news articles from that same time period remain relevant under MEDRS. Amranu (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see less of those sources, too. The Sharpless source (currently ref 3) would be better. I'm surprised it hasn't been used more.

It might be helpful to have someone add |type=News to the news articles, so it's easier for editors to notice how much we're relying on news articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paradox is also mentioned in our second source, so such a note could be added without adding the study, should we wish to avoid that. Amranu (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amranu, I think we're too early in the WP:RFCBEFORE discussion to contemplate an RFC, but even if we all agreed, your draft has some problems.

The first is that "please vote for four discrete options on how to word the first sentence" is listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief as an example under "Bad questions". There are a nearly infinite number of ways to word a sentence; therefore, RFCs that try to constrain people to one of a few options tend to fail. (RFCs that offer a simple accept/reject for a single version tend to succeed in forming consensus – you could realistically expect a clear majority of editors to vote in favor of the current language – but do not necessarily succeed in improving the article.)

In general, the more you write, the less that gets read. Much of the "points of contention" could be posted as someone's response to the question. RFCs should not normally provide "instructions" unless there is something unusual going on. That's another easy way to cut the length.

Overall, my advice to you is not to do this now, and if you don't take that advice, then I suggest you workshop your question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment first. There are several experienced editors there who will be willing to help you form a question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. I'll delay for now but I think, judging by the lack of interaction with my arguments from the editors here that we are heading to an RfC. Let me know when/if you think it would be appropriate. Amranu (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About gang stalking: it is not uncommon that people who have a reputation of being mad get stalked by rebellious youth. It is not a government conspiracy, though. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned gang-stalking. Not sure the relevance to my complaint, could you clarify? Amranu (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we WP:ASSERT a fact e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute. There is no serious dispute these are delusions. The only sources disputing it are WP:FRINGE sources, and those are not considered serious. Given the authoritative sources we have, the article does not need to give validity to the idea that psychiatrists could be wrong, the mind control could be real, or there could be a powerful conspiracy by evil forces or government agents to control people's minds at a distance with top secret technology etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that these people are delusional falls under WP:MEDRS. It is a medical claim, and in this article is not backed-up by reliable secondary sources as required by WP:MEDRS. Given the lack of reliable sources (news articles are not enough for medical claims), we do not appear to be meeting the standard to say there is no serious dispute here. Back up your medical claims with proper sources, or modify the article to reflect the source of your claims as requested. Amranu (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or option 3: reject the premise of your argument. MEDRS does not apply here. MrOllie (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to address my arguments already given as to why MEDRS does apply here (namely that claiming a person as delusional is a medical diagnosis, and WP:MEDRS clearly applies). Amranu (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have been addressed above. PS: this edit is quite obviously against the consensus demonstrated in this talk section. Kindly do not do something like that again. MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not been addressed. Feel free to address them yourself. I will be tagging this article as not in compliance with WP:MEDRS until such time as someone actually does address how calling a group delusional is not a medical diagnosis. Amranu (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you don't agree, but that does not mean that the discussion above does not exist. You don't have a consensus to apply a tag, either, so don't do that. Tags are not a means for one editor to register their disagreement with everyone else. A read of WP:1AM would probably be useful to you at this point. MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have they been addressed above? It is asserted that WP:MEDRS does not apply, but no premises are used to back up that conclusion. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Amranu (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As written above, We do not require WP:MEDRS sourcing to establish that the government is not using secret technology to beam messages into the brains of randomly selected citizens. and See WP:PARITY. We don't hold debunking of nonsense to higher standards than people pushing nonsense. This does not violate WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this argument previously, with no comment from others to dismiss it. Here is my response from earlier:

There is a difference between stating there’s no reliable evidence for government mind control (a factual, non-medical claim) and labeling a belief as “delusional” (a psychiatric evaluation). The former can be shown by the lack of evidence from reliable sources. The latter should come from robust medical literature. Following WP:MEDRS and properly attributing medical characterizations is not an exercise in “watering down” but in ensuring the article is both factually accurate and policy-compliant Amranu (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that you disagree does not mean that your points weren't addressed, and that someone does not reply to every part of every post you made does not mean that you can then do what you like with the article - consensus does not belong to whomever spoke last, and discussions are not about who can fillibuster the longest, they are about WP:CONSENSUS support from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that response is fallacious, as it conflates what I'm arguing with something else. Specifically, debunking beliefs is not the same thing as calling a group as delusional. The latter is a medical diagnosis and falls squarely under WP:MEDRS. Amranu (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but your view has not gathered any support from this discussion. Consensus is that MEDRS doesn't apply here. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this edit is a continuation of the same tendentious behavior 9 months ago. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaffiliated with that user, it was simply the easiest way to resolve the problem relating to WP:MEDRS. Amranu (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view, but WP:MEDRS applies here as we're dealing with a medical claim - labeling beliefs as "delusional." News articles don't suffice for this; we need high-quality medical sources. WP:PARITY doesn't override this requirement for medical judgments. I've cited a study (DOI: 10.1159/000090598) that uses cautious language like "likely" or "potentially" delusional, which aligns with MEDRS. Let's update the text accordingly or seek broader community input via an RfC to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Amranu (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're just going around in circles and repeating ourselves at this point. Let's see if anyone else has something new to say. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be gracious if you could start the RfC. I have no idea what I'm doing in that area. Amranu (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in a few days, depending on what other discussion occurs here in the meanwhile. WP:RFCBEFORE is critical and that takes time. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MEDRS does not apply. The word "delusion" as it is used in this article is, very obviously, the common usage of the word (which is so much more widely used than the medical usage as to be the primary definition provided), and not a medical diagnosis. One does not have to be a licensed, practicing physician to say "this person has a delusion," and the assertion to the contrary is, if neither dishonest nor the result of a -frankly- comedic amount of misunderstanding, then... (drumroll please) delusional. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we are using the common language version of delusion, why are we citing psyhiatrists as primary sources to defend our position? This is a contradiction, we are very clearly attempting to justify the medical usage of the term. Amranu (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am genuinely impressed by the complete lack of any observable thought whatsoever in that response. Please reflect upon what you are asking me and try really really hard to understand why it is a serious contender for the title of the most self-defeating rhetorical question that has ever been asked in the entire history of mankind. I will not be replying further as I genuinely don't believe you capable of engaging in a coherent discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me try to communicate more clearly then.

  1. We are currently citing primary sources (psychiatrist interviews in newspapers).

  2. Citing primary sources could easily be interpreted to mean our use of the word "delusion" is taken in a medical context, thereby invoking WP:MEDRS

  3. The use of the article hyperlink to Persecutory delusion at the start of the article, which references the medical definition of delusion. This suggets that we are using that formulation of the word in our introduction.

  4. It follows that we should, at the very least clarify the ambiguity. If we are not using the medical definition, we should state as much. Altlernatively, we can update our sources to be compatible with WP:MEDRS

  Thanks for your time. Amranu (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also you may need to reference Proof by contradiction to understand my initial argument. It's quite simple. If we were using the colloquial version of the word, we would not need to seek the medical opinions of psychiatrists to justify it. Since we are clearly taking their advice from primary sources, we're using the medical connotation of the word. Amranu (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We also link to Persecutory delusion delusion at the start of the article. Note that article is talking about the medical condition as well, further strengthening my argument that we are using the medical diagnosis form of the word. Amranu (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(arriving from the Noticeboard) I actually think that MEDRS is relevant, given the weight we give to the medical perspective (Multiple medical professionals...). However, I also think there is nothing in MEDRS which requires sources for biomedical information to be, say, peer-reviewed journal articles. Clearly those types of sources represent a higher quality source for biomedical claims than popular press sources, but are they necessary? Our current sources (high quality secondary sources quoting experts) are pretty good. Since there are precisely zero reliable sources contradicting the sources we have, I don't see any strong driver for us to need to seek those even higher quality sources. If someone can dig up a study that proves these people are delusional, then great, the article will be better for it. But the article is not in violation of anything as it stands, and represents a reasonable summary of the available sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Also arriving from the Noticeboard) I would get objecting to the use of the term "delusional" overall (we could likely find a wordier and I guess less offensive way to say it) but I don't get watering it down... And its the term that is used by the experts in both of the articles used to directly source the first line. IMO MEDRS applies to specific details but not to, for example, a general description of a condition which doesn't seem to be in dispute among experts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for coming both of you. Two things I'd like to respond.

  1. WP:MEDRS is pretty specific about the sorts of references that meet it's standard for biomedical information, specifically it states "the Wikipedia community relies on guidance contained in expert scientific reviews and textbooks, and in official statements published by major medical and scientific bodies. Note that health-related content in the general news media should not normally be used to source biomedical content in Wikipedia articles." This strongly suggests that we need to seek better sources for our claim at the very least.

  2. The study listed here, not cited in the article as yet (https://doi.org/10.1159/000090598) makes the following statements:

  - "It must be noted that we are not suggesting all members of a community interested in these issues show signs of psychopathology." (pg 4)

  - "In conclusion, the presence of a complex and evolving online community based around the content of potentially psychotic experience challenges mainstream psychiatric understanding and diagnostic criteria for how a delusion is defined." (pg. 5)

  This source is our single peer reviewed source on the matter, and it uses language like "likely" and "potentially" ostensibly because there is a potential debate over whether this group is delusional (specifically the paper mentions the subculture exception in the DSM-IV as a problem, which also exists in DSM-5's definition of delusion). Given this I strongly recommend we update the article taking into account this new paper and soften our language.

  Thanks for your time. Amranu (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This concern is also raised in our current second source "Sharing Their Demons on the Web" (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html) which has the following relevant excerpt:

  "Vaughan Bell, a British psychologist who has researched the effect of the Internet on mental illness, first began tracking sites with reports of mind control in 2004. In 2006 he published a study concluding that there was an extensive Internet community around such beliefs, and he called 10 sites he studied “likely psychotic sites.” The extent of the community, Dr. Bell said, poses a paradox to the traditional way delusion is defined under the diagnostic guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, which says that if a belief is held by a person’s “culture or subculture,” it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example. Dr. Bell, whose study was published in the journal Psychopathology, said that it does not suggest all people participating in mind-control sites are delusional, and that a firm diagnosis of psychosis could only be done in person." Amranu (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think our article says that all people participating in mind-control sites are delusional. The article is about the ones who are.

  The “paradox” mentioned is interesting, in that Bell is questioning whether this is a valid exception, because the ease with which subcultures can form online means that a genuinely delusional belief might get a free pass just because fellow delusioneers managed to find each other on the internet. This could be taken to mean that we should be applying the label delusional more than we do already. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it could go either way - that's the problem with the DSM is it carves out these exceptions for culture and subculture which TIs might inhabit, thus freeing themselves from the term "delusion".

  The last sentence in the excerpt above though strongly suggests we shouldn't be using the term delusional, since such medical diagnosis should only be done in person and, ostensibly, on a case-by-case basis. Amranu (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AIUI the key difference between a medical diagnosis and medical information is that medical diagnosis says "You, personally, have _____", whereas medical information only says "Some people have _____". It is perfectly okay for us to use words like delusional so long as we are not deciding for ourselves that any specific individual is delusional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of reliable sources that quote doctors using the word "delusion" which is sufficient here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming from WT:MEDRS, reposted on WP:FTN)I think the overwhelming conclusion of mainstream sources calling this a "delusion" would mean that suggesting it is only a perspective would be problematic.

I would also argue to Amranu that WP:1AM could be a good essay for this current situation, and to consider it carefully... I see that all of the objections to the characterization of Electronic Harrassment as a delusion is coming from you. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean I'm wrong. They're not using proper sources to back up their claims and all I'm asking is that they remove the editorial voice calling people delusional and associate it with their sources instead. Amranu (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting WP:CONSENSUS sometimes means walking away even when you're sure everyone else is wrong. I've done it, we've all done it here. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resorting to a "But I'm right!" argument is not going to persuade anyone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I reiterated part of my argument but yes, I'll try to be more constructive in the future. Amranu (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Amranu's note at WT:MEDRS. In medical journals, "electronic harassment" seems to refer to cyberbullying.

I think that this concern might be solvable via copyediting. For example, instead of "delusional belief", say "false belief" or "unfounded belief" in the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would satisfy the MEDRS complaint. Unfounded aligns more closely with WP:NPOV. Amranu (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting into Wikipedia:STICK and Wikipedia:1AM territory. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of Delusion defines it as a "false fixed belief." There still is no consensus to remove or water down the word "delusion" from this article because a single editor doesn't like it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Since the point of a talk-page discussion is to form a consensus, it doesn't really matter if there's no consensus yet. We can still form a consensus.)

An insistence on a particular label is sometimes a type of POV pushing. As one source on mind control puts it, "Labels serve an important function for expressing support or disapproval of an intellectual position".[2] If no alternative word or phrase could be acceptable, then perhaps we're using Wikipedia to support a particular viewpoint about this. If that's what we're doing, overall it's a viewpoint that I think is WP:DUE and appropriate; however, my own concern is about getting readers to understand the subject. If they encounter "it's a delusion", they might think that's a hyperbolic or slangy use of the term. If they read "false, fixed belief" they can't dismiss it as an overstatement.

Alternatively, if you want to push past the slang and back into obvious technical language, then "is the delusional belief" could become "is a persecutory delusion". doi:10.1080/10398560701633176, however, speaks of persecutory delusions as being separate from delusions of being controlled (also delusions of reference, delusions of mind-reading, grandiose delusions, and unspecified other delusions; perhaps Delusion#Types should be split into a List of delusions or Types of delusions and expanded), and I'm not sure whether this would be filed under "being controlled" or "persecutory". It might be both, or even more types? (People with schizophrenia frequently have multiple delusions.) Table 3 in that paper lists delusions of mind control, thought broadcasting, transmitting devices, and thought insertion, all of which sound relevant to this subject.

The main thing I've learned from searching for sources is that searching under the name "electronic harassment" misses most of the relevant scholarly sources. I therefore wonder if we have the best title, and if our reliance on WP:PARITY is a symptom of looking for "sources that use this exact name" instead of "sources about this subject". I also wish for a ==History== section.

On the broader subject, I've been trying to sort out how this article relates to others. Mind control seems to be a dab page. The ==Psychology and neurology== section might be better off using the Wikipedia:Set index articles model, which would allow for longer descriptions and sourcing. This article, which appears to the modern version of the government and/or alien mind control ray, which popular culture recommends thwarting with a tin foil hat, is not mentioned there. Skeptic connects it to 5G conspiracies, saying "much of the fear surrounding 5G is rooted in a distrust of science and technology—particularly from those who believe the theories about 5G being used for brainwashing and control."[3]

doi:10.1159/000090598, recommended above, is from 2006, which is a WP:MEDDATE problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]