Talk:Electronic harassment - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LuckyLouie (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 23 May 2016 (→Two-in-One: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:31, 23 May 2016 by LuckyLouie (talk | contribs) (→Two-in-One: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. 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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. 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.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

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)

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.

Extended content

Disbelief as a Defence Mechanism
In the face of widespread disbelief about mind-control, it seems worth analysing the basis of the mechanisms employed to maintain disbelief:
i) In the sixties, Soviet dissidents received a significant measure of sympathy and indignant protest from western democracies on account of their treatment, most notedly the abuse of psychiatric methods of torture to which they were subjected. It is noteworthy that we seem to be able to access credulity, express feelings of indignant support when we can identify with victims, who share and support our own value system, and who, in this particular historical case, reinforced our own values, since they were protesting against a political system which also threatened us at that time. Psychologically, it is equally important to observe that support from a safe distance, and the benefits to the psyche of attacking a split-off ‘bad father’, the soviet authorities in this case, presents no threat to one’s internal system; indeed it relieves internal pressures. On the other hand, recognizing and denouncing a similar offence makes very much greater psychic demands of us when it brings us into conflict with our own environment, our own security, our own reality. The defence against disillusion serves to suppress paranoia that our father figure, the president, the prime minister, our governments - might not be what they would like to be seen to be.
ii) The need to deposit destructive envy and bad feelings elsewhere, on account of the inability of the ego to acknowledge ownership of them - reinforces the usefulness of persons or groups, which will serve to contain those, disowned, projected feelings which arouse paranoid anxieties. The concepts of mind-invasion strike at the very heart of paranoid anxiety, causing considerable efforts to dislodge them from the psyche. The unconscious identification of madness with dirt or excrement is an important aspect of anal aggression, triggering projective identification as a defence.
iii) To lay oneself open to believing that a person is undergoing the experience of being invaded mentally and physically by an unseen manipulator requires very great efforts in the self to manage dread.
iv) The defence against the unknown finds expression in the split between theory and practice; between the scientist as innovator and the society who can make the moral decisions about his inventions; between fact and science fiction, the latter of which can present preposterous challenges to the imagination without undue threat, because it serves to reinforce a separation from the real.
v) Identification with the aggressor. Sadistic fantasies, unconscious and conscious, being transferred on to the aggressor and identified with, aid the repression of fear of passivity, or a dread of punishment. This mechanism acts to deny credulity to the victim who represents weakness. This is a common feature of satanic sects.
vi) The liberal humanist tradition which denies the worst destructive capacities of man in the effort to sustain the belief in the great continuity of cultural and scientific tradition; the fear, in one’s own past development, of not being ‘ongoing’, can produce the psychic effect of reversal into the opposite to shield against aggressive feelings. This becomes then the exaggerated celebration of the ‘new’ as the affirmation of human genius which will ultimately be for the good of mankind, and which opposes warning voices about scientific advances as being pessimistic, unenlightened, unprogressive and Luddite. Strict adherence to this liberal position can act as overcompensation for a fear of envious spoiling of good possessions, i.e. cultural and intellectual goods.
vii) Denial by displacement is also employed to ignore the harmful aspects of technology. What may be harmful for the freedom and good of society can be masked and concealed by the distribution of new and entertaining novelties. The technology, which puts a camera down your gut for medical purposes, is also used to limit your freedom by surveillance. The purveyors of innovative technology come up with all sorts of new gadgets, which divert, entertain and feed the acquisitive needs of insatiable shoppers, and bolster the economy. The theme of “Everything’s up to date in Kansas City” only takes on a downside when individual experience – exploding breast implants, say – takes the gilt off the gingerbread. Out of every innovation for evil (i.e. designed for harming and destroying) some ‘good’ (i.e. public diversion or entertainment) can be promoted for profit or crowd-pleasing.
viii) Nasa is sending a spacecraft to Mars, or so we are told. They plan to trundle across the Martian surface searching for signs of water and life. We do not hear dissenting voices about its feasibility. Why is it that, when a person accounts that their mind is being disrupted and they are being persecuted by an unseen method of invasive technology, that we cannot bring ourselves to believe them? Could it be that the horror involved in the empathic identification required brings the shutters down? Conversely, the shared experience of the blasting of objects into space brings with it the possibilities of shared potency or the relief that resonates in the unconscious of a massive projection or evacuation – a shared experience which is blessed in the name of man’s scientific genius.
ix) The desire ‘not to be taken in’, not to be taken for a fool, provides one of the most powerful and common defence mechanism against credulity."
— Carole Smith (British Psychoanalyst), retrevied from Pennsylvania_State_University's website at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.666.9394&rep=rep1&type=pdf, first published in 2003 on the 'Journal for Psychosocial Studies' by the Association_for_Psychosocial_Studies

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) Where does it say this stuff is being used to covertly harass citizens? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Nowhere of course. Did I mean to suggest it does? It's just that this controversy, I guess you may agree with me on this, is as well about the alleged existence of technologies capable of mimicking psychiatric illnesses. It's acknowledged these technologies exist and this source confirms it (as if it really was needed), thus omitting some amount of bias to the claims seems just wrong. Jed Stuard is right on this. Let's also mention that the public image of psychiatry, especially in the area of clandestine mind control, is grossly ambivalent. Indeed there's no branch of medicine that I know of which has an anti movement other than psychiatry. There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc. So psychiatry is shifty and it's its own acknowledged history telling so, it's not just about electronic harassment, a bunch of weird people claiming psychiatry is a conspiracy. Also, the MKULTRA program was supervised in great number by important psychiatrists of that time with their entourages. The point is that psychiatry is often too deeply clung to social rather than to medical issues. But it's all in the open anyway, nonetheless the sources used as the ground on which the bias of the page is built on refer mostly to diagnoses via websites. What sort of diagnosing method is that? Don't need to go too far in time to spot psychiatry has a juicy history of cruel abuse on innocents, and governments have that too. To make things worse, they often work together, and I'm not referring explicitely to MKULTRA but to the fact that generally speaking, psychiatric internment is one face of the coin of social control, with the other being prison. So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". I mean, take Julianne Mckinney for example, she should be considered a reliable source, but she's a whistleblower thus she's not. Take Dr. Nick Begich, same thing. Take Dr. John Hall, same thing. Take Dr. Robert Duncan, same thing again. Take Dr. Rauni Kilde. Take Dennis Kucinich, same thing. Take Jim Guest, same again. Afterall, wikipedia is mainstream media information, just as fox news, cnn, bbc, al jazeera and all the others. So what's all this?.. nothing, just a sad afterpiece as I see it from here. 95.252.92.104 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC) There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc. On the contrary, there's quite a bit of anti-medical sentiment out there. Christian Science is the biggest one that comes to mind, although Jehovah's Witnesses often oppose specific medical treatments such as blood transfusions and autopsies, and this link lists more anti-medical religious groups. Then, there's the hundreds of non-religious conspiracy theories world wide opposing specific medical treatments; AIDS denialism, the Anti-vaccination movement, etc, etc... Of course, none of this includes the extremely common view that 'too much' prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed. So, you're not correct at all about psychiatry being unique in this regards. So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". You're assuming that WP has a position which stems from ideology on this. It does not. The position WP takes is that which realiable sources portray. If that position falls cleanly on one side of a controversial (to some) issue, then I would suggest that this is because that is the correct side of the issue for evidence-based thinkers to take. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC) @MjolnirPants: Excuse me, what is your hyperbole supposed to mean? At first read I really thought I had got something wrong and that you were right. But then I realized it was just your use of non-standard colors. It seems to me you just decorated a loose attempt to oppose my comment, with arguments that are cited nowhere in the sources. Where did you spot anti-medical religious claims in the sources of electronic harassment? Where did you spot Aids denialism and the Anti-vaccination movement? And where did you spot the claim that "too much prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed" accross the sources??? Despite what you colorfully write, psychiatry is the only branch of medicine with a very well recognized and active anti movement, since decades ago. For your information, there's no recognized Anti-Infectious disease movement and there's never been one as far as I know.. What the hell are you talking about? Lastly, you're free to believe wikipedia is allowed to publish any content which is not government-aligned as long as it respects the five pillars, but I beg to disagree. Honestly, you need to get a grip my dear friend. Electronic harassment revolves around specific arguments which are cited in the sources.. we can't simply bring in other arguments trying to give them notability at will. 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC) I responded by quoting your exact words. I did so with respect to the context, and I responded clearly and with prosaic and easy-to-understand language and logic. If you can't or won't parse it, then I'm afraid I can't help you further. Simply sitting here and repeating your claims will not make you right, and in my not-inconsiderable experience here, will tend to end with you being ignored by other users. In addition, I would advise you to look up the meaning of the word "hyperbole." Either you're unaware of what it means, or completely ignorant of the irony in you accusing me of engaging on it. Finally, telling me to "get a grip" is a personal attack that can get you blocked from editing. I would advise you to tune down your rhetoric. (P.S: It's also hyperbole.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC) @95.252.92.104: You lost me at Julianne Mckinney - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC) @LuckyLouie: I lost you what? Why? 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC) You recommended Julianne Mckinney as a reliable source. I Googled her, read the crackpottery (that I assume you wish would appear on Misplaced Pages) and concluded there probably isn't any hope for a productive discussion here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic; Belongs to "Directed-energy weapon"

80.117.21.77 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say this stuff is being used to covertly harass citizens? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere of course. Did I mean to suggest it does? It's just that this controversy, I guess you may agree with me on this, is as well about the alleged existence of technologies capable of mimicking psychiatric illnesses. It's acknowledged these technologies exist and this source confirms it (as if it really was needed), thus omitting some amount of bias to the claims seems just wrong. Jed Stuard is right on this.

Let's also mention that the public image of psychiatry, especially in the area of clandestine mind control, is grossly ambivalent. Indeed there's no branch of medicine that I know of which has an anti movement other than psychiatry. There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc.

So psychiatry is shifty and it's its own acknowledged history telling so, it's not just about electronic harassment, a bunch of weird people claiming psychiatry is a conspiracy. Also, the MKULTRA program was supervised in great number by important psychiatrists of that time with their entourages. The point is that psychiatry is often too deeply clung to social rather than to medical issues. But it's all in the open anyway, nonetheless the sources used as the ground on which the bias of the page is built on refer mostly to diagnoses via websites. What sort of diagnosing method is that? Don't need to go too far in time to spot psychiatry has a juicy history of cruel abuse on innocents, and governments have that too. To make things worse, they often work together, and I'm not referring explicitely to MKULTRA but to the fact that generally speaking, psychiatric internment is one face of the coin of social control, with the other being prison.

So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". I mean, take Julianne Mckinney for example, she should be considered a reliable source, but she's a whistleblower thus she's not. Take Dr. Nick Begich, same thing. Take Dr. John Hall, same thing. Take Dr. Robert Duncan, same thing again. Take Dr. Rauni Kilde. Take Dennis Kucinich, same thing. Take Jim Guest, same again. Afterall, wikipedia is mainstream media information, just as fox news, cnn, bbc, al jazeera and all the others. So what's all this?.. nothing, just a sad afterpiece as I see it from here. 95.252.92.104 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no... Anti-cardiology movement, nor an Anti-dermatology movement or an Anti-gynaecology movement etc. On the contrary, there's quite a bit of anti-medical sentiment out there. Christian Science is the biggest one that comes to mind, although Jehovah's Witnesses often oppose specific medical treatments such as blood transfusions and autopsies, and this link lists more anti-medical religious groups. Then, there's the hundreds of non-religious conspiracy theories world wide opposing specific medical treatments; AIDS denialism, the Anti-vaccination movement, etc, etc... Of course, none of this includes the extremely common view that 'too much' prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed. So, you're not correct at all about psychiatry being unique in this regards.

So I don't really trust wikipedia will be allowed to have published content which is not.. "government-aligned". You're assuming that WP has a position which stems from ideology on this. It does not. The position WP takes is that which realiable sources portray. If that position falls cleanly on one side of a controversial (to some) issue, then I would suggest that this is because that is the correct side of the issue for evidence-based thinkers to take. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Excuse me, what is your hyperbole supposed to mean? At first read I really thought I had got something wrong and that you were right. But then I realized it was just your use of non-standard colors. It seems to me you just decorated a loose attempt to oppose my comment, with arguments that are cited nowhere in the sources. Where did you spot anti-medical religious claims in the sources of electronic harassment? Where did you spot Aids denialism and the Anti-vaccination movement? And where did you spot the claim that "too much prescription drugs is a very bad thing, regardless of how they were prescribed" accross the sources???

Despite what you colorfully write, psychiatry is the only branch of medicine with a very well recognized and active anti movement, since decades ago. For your information, there's no recognized Anti-Infectious disease movement and there's never been one as far as I know.. What the hell are you talking about?

Lastly, you're free to believe wikipedia is allowed to publish any content which is not government-aligned as long as it respects the five pillars, but I beg to disagree.

Honestly, you need to get a grip my dear friend. Electronic harassment revolves around specific arguments which are cited in the sources.. we can't simply bring in other arguments trying to give them notability at will. 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I responded by quoting your exact words. I did so with respect to the context, and I responded clearly and with prosaic and easy-to-understand language and logic. If you can't or won't parse it, then I'm afraid I can't help you further. Simply sitting here and repeating your claims will not make you right, and in my not-inconsiderable experience here, will tend to end with you being ignored by other users. In addition, I would advise you to look up the meaning of the word "hyperbole." Either you're unaware of what it means, or completely ignorant of the irony in you accusing me of engaging on it. Finally, telling me to "get a grip" is a personal attack that can get you blocked from editing. I would advise you to tune down your rhetoric. (P.S: It's also hyperbole.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@95.252.92.104: You lost me at Julianne Mckinney - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I lost you what? Why? 87.1.112.251 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You recommended Julianne Mckinney as a reliable source. I Googled her, read the crackpottery (that I assume you wish would appear on Misplaced Pages) and concluded there probably isn't any hope for a productive discussion here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Fringe tag

IMO, this tag applied to the article was done with good intentions, but not fully thought out. The tagger has not specified exactly which parts of the article are giving too much weight to fringe views. I was one of the editors that reworked this article to clean out fringe sources and copyedit the text in order to adequately explain the fringe views while not giving them undue weight. The goal is to describe the fringe views with enough detail from third party reliable sources without giving them undue emphasis or credibility. While I agree the article could use some better organization and polish, the basic weight/sourcing/compliance with WP:FRINGE looks pretty good to me. What do others think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I took another look at it and gave it a quick reading, and I have to admit it does look a lot better than the last time I read through it. So I removed the tag, and re-titled the scare-quoted sections. I'm open to re-titling those sections again of course, but the scare quotes just looked awful. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Righteous removal. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I added the tag. If it wasn't necessary, I apologize. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Two-in-One

I am uneasy seeing the the article mixes two separate, although related conspiracy theories: (1) existence of psychotronic weapons and (2) harassment by electromagnetic means.

It is natural that the two interleave, overlap and intermix wildly. It is also clear that in many parts they differ. And both cases are no wonder: the claims in both are wild speculations as to the nature of the tools used.

At first I thought to make two articles to clearly separate the two. But then it occurred to me that in the same mixer barrel go various mind control conspiracies. So now I am thinking about a comprehensive article under a descriptive title, Conspiracy theories about mind-targeting weapons. Any thoughts? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The proposed title suggests there are conspiracy beliefs about mind-targeting weapons that are not "electronic". (Are there? I honestly don't know) Also, we already have Psychotronics (with its section on Psychotronics - Conspiracy theories) as a separate article, but with material that largely duplicates what's in this one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories: