Revision as of 13:07, 23 May 2016 editMjolnirPants (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,655 edits →May 2016: hatting spammed quoted← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:28, 23 May 2016 edit undo87.6.115.62 (talk) Undid revision 721686889 by MjolnirPants (talk) - reverting vandalism (it's not spam as it has never been posted on this Talk page)Next edit → | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
So in conclusion, bias of ] is unjustifiably too much against the claims of it. The only.... "justification" I can think of, is a very sad one: | So in conclusion, bias of ] is unjustifiably too much against the claims of it. The only.... "justification" I can think of, is a very sad one: | ||
the editors acting as "wiki-censors" are doing it in the interest of securing wikipedia's government-alignment bias towards such unsettling, indigestible claims. | the editors acting as "wiki-censors" are doing it in the interest of securing wikipedia's government-alignment bias towards such unsettling, indigestible claims. | ||
{{collapse top}} | |||
<table style="border:1px solid #AAA; font-size:90%"><tr><td>{{Quote|text='''Disbelief as a Defence Mechanism''' | <table style="border:1px solid #AAA; font-size:90%"><tr><td>{{Quote|text='''Disbelief as a Defence Mechanism''' | ||
Line 131: | Line 130: | ||
|align = left | |align = left | ||
|width = 90% | |width = 90% | ||
⚫ | }}</table> ] (]) 23:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
}}</table> | |||
⚫ | |||
== New source just found == | == New source just found == |
Revision as of 13:28, 23 May 2016
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
May 2016
-LuckyLouie. I am not making the point that psychiatry is part of the conspiracy, although some may be. My point is they may be ignorant of new forms of harassment that are not taken into account in their mindset. It would not be the first time a scientific discipline has got something wrong. I will attempt to change the article to make it how it seems it should be and see if you are wrong about the judgment that I am attempting to push a fringe point of view. The citation I was referring to is number 4 by Dietrich, that has not been peer reviewed it seems.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Jed Stuart, I moved your comment here because you were editing an archived page. New comments belong on the Talk page, thanks. I also reverted your latest edit, in which you removed material from the article that was directly supported by the article's sources. Myself and other editors have attempted to explain relevant Misplaced Pages editorial policies to you many times on Talk pages, so I'm beginning to think disruption or WP:COMPETENCE applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Jed Stuart: If there is a technology so new that no-one's heard of it, then by definition, it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. We don't write The Truth™ here, we write verifiable, accurate content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @JedStuart: By the way, you are correct that Dietrich's paper is a Master's thesis, however the informal general opinion of the WP community about the use of Master's thesis as sources is that many Master's programs do have stringent review as a condition of publication, and so a thesis may be cited with the caveat that it should not be the sole source directly supporting the article text. I note there is a guideline that Master's thesis as sources should have "significant scholarly influence", so anyone who objects to including the Dietrich source on those grounds can remove it. (The article text, being supported by other multiple reliable sources, would remain) However IMO, using it in this article is appropriate, since Dietrich's conclusions are not at all novel or controversial (she uses recognized texts such as the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for source material) and are clearly echoed by the other academic sources present in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Caveat: Master thesis is OK as a source of facts reported during the research. However the conclusions of a thesis are not at all automatically due, because a Master is not a recognized expert yet. Therefore I agree that thesis is OK as a footnote to an opinion only as a supplement to more respected sources, because they may contain more factual detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- -LuckyLouie, Thankyou for moving my comments to the appropriate place. It seems to me that what you are attempting to do to the article is take the controversy out of it, whereas the Washington Post described it as such. It is ok to state the opinion of psychiatrists but not ok to state their opinion as fact. All I am attempting to do is describe the controversy as it has appeared in that article. You can call that disruption, but it is only disruption of your very hard line on that. There has been enough huffing and puffing in alternative media also for it to be recognized that their is a growing controversy, even though their conclusion cannot be included in Misplaced Pages. To say "Individuals suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders or other mental illness.." states that TIs are mentally ill as a matter of fact not of opinion. I will take the matter to the conflict resolution process. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Jed Stuart:
It is ok to state the opinion of psychiatrists but not ok to state their opinion as fact.
When psychiatrists agree (as they do in this case) upon something, it becomes a consensus. That is something which WP policy requires us to state as fact. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC) - -LuckyLouie, I have put in a request for dispute resolution at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Jed Stuart:
The dispute resolution has been just closed, and I'm glad it has, since it was no different than debating with cavemen screaming without consistency. Obviously it was closed in favour of the seasoned wiki-censors controlling this article. The editor who self-assigned to moderate the whole dispute was a giant waste of time, which is why both me and I guess Jed Stuart too, mostly eluded the meaningless rethoric they all kept writing down (too bad I didn't notice just before it got closed, what looks like a sound-minded editor commented reasonably but it was too late... the dispute had already been closed). Now I'm going to copy-paste here my point of view I expressed over there, mostly for the record though, because the situation is clearly against the chance that the changes we are suggesting will be applied (not that they make sense whilst we don't... the point is we are just too outnumbered). I will soon be posting the link to the Dispute Resolution case also. Here goes the pasting of what I wrote over there (it's very important to read this since it contains key concepts of this debate):
I'm going to be quoting a british psychoanalyst which I'm sure will help frame the whole debate Jed Stuart refers to, specifically the long running caustic denial of the seasoned editors involved. However, firstly I care to say that neither me, nor I believe Jed Stuart and most of the tens of past opposing editors, is trying to negate the simple chance that a lot of people could be delusional about mind control experiences (aka MCEs). We are just suggesting it does look so very reasonable to agree on the fact a lot of real TI's exist, even if often mixed in online communities along with either mentally disturbed individuals and/or exagerrated conspirationists.
Verfiable and reliable sources confirm the following points that come to mind:
1) the existence of technologies able to impact and degrade human health the way it's claimed by TI's Y
2) the infamous historical relation between psychiatry and government (which spans from the very inception of psychiatry, rolling over the well known Soviet dissidents abusively drugged in a coercive fashion, to the extensive involvment of psychiatrists in the MKULTRA program, up to the cruel history of madhouses) proving that psychiatry has been too often deeply clung to social, rather than to medical issues Y
3) Jed Stuart rightfully suggesting that since the Washington Post article seems the most reliable, accurate, comprehensive and neutral source should be given more weight than it is, specifically over the fact it is unaligned, if not aligned towards the chance TI's could be right but they are unable to prove it for evident reasons Y
4) the sources used as the ground on which the bias of the page is built on, refer mostly to diagnoses made via websites - there's no mention of a face-to-face evaluation, no interview, no psychiatric consultation Y
So in conclusion, bias of Electronic harassment is unjustifiably too much against the claims of it. The only.... "justification" I can think of, is a very sad one: the editors acting as "wiki-censors" are doing it in the interest of securing wikipedia's government-alignment bias towards such unsettling, indigestible claims.
|
87.1.112.55 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
New source just found
Off-topic; Belongs to "Directed-energy weapon" |
---|
80.117.21.77 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
|