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
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
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
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.
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]:
[ 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:
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.
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
Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
This article is based on published reliable sources, as determined by Wikipedia policy. Such policies are not open to negotiation here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
}}
This article is unprofessional. It links everything with everything. It combines the belief of TI and realistic programs of the US government like MK-ULTRA with delusional. These are completely different subjects. Brain targeted weapons exist. They are real and demonstrated. The governments that experimented with brain control exist.
And why so biast in the so called 'medical professionals' that do the claim about hallucinations or psychosis in the wiki?
(1)Article from 2007 is no evidence for the claim. Read it. Not medical. It is just a story.
(2)Article from 2012. Author? Angela Monroe from Kmir news? is she medical professional ? No is not. It is illustrative.
(5) General book about disorders.
(6) A doctor talks about 'groupthink' and a patient that is already 20 years schizophrenic. No realistic evidence for the claim.
This is Wikipedia and we need to inform correctly. It is time to write a new wiki about AI and radio technology that is capable and useable of mind control.
"At various times and places throughout history, gouvernments have indeed attempted to develop mind-contol capabilities-and some of those efforts have continued to this day. ... For most of the topics I've covered thus far, there have been shades of gray; our cognitive liberties are not always absolute. But when it comes to the weaponization of mind control, virtually every example is clearly over the line."
Are you going to make a specific request? Like "change X to Y", or "remove X", and so on. I don't see anything above but venting and vague handwaving complaints. You mention sources but nothing specific enough to be actionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely I do. I want the wiki presenting truth and reality. I want the specific phrase to be removed. Not only because it is very outdated, the links in the discussed phrase are -as I demonstrated-, not correct. The claim 'medical professionals' is false. So I ask to update the wiki. I have more and there is more reliable research that is up to date on this subject. The source I presented is very recent, and as member of the presidential ethical commission: truthful and valuable. 145.87.253.240 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So I want this section and the links removed. And add the tekst I mentioned with link to the book.
'Multiple medical professionals have concluded that these experiences are hallucinations, the result of delusional disorders, or psychosis.' 145.87.253.240 (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no evidence that mind control of that sort even exists, as opposed to mere propaganda. Of course, some researchers tried to do that, but there is no indication they ever succeeded. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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]
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
(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
Latest comment: 6 days ago141 comments13 people in discussion
Collapse extended WP:BLUDGEONING. Consensus did not support removal or watering down of "delusional belief" in lead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
}}
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
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
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
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..
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
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.
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.
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
Not to beat a dead horse, but an entry in the Introduction -does- show there is academic debate over labelling TIs as delusional "Thus there is academic debate about the ethics of using DSM criteria to label people with stigmatizing diagnoses, when there are no workable treatments" (pg. 3)
In addition, the study here emphasizes the difficulty in declaring TIs delusional, according to the book above (pg. 17-18), citing the same paradox already found in the study linked earlier in this discussion and in the second source of this article.
I'm sure there's a lot more interesting information in there too, that's just what stood out to me with a cursory glance of the introduction. Amranu (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are academic debates about the ethics of labeling people with any sort of untreatable stigmatizing diagnosis. The Neonatal heel prick tests could test for 10x what they do now, but it's considered unethical to tell parents "Guess what? Your baby is going to die, and there's nothing anyone can do about it." People go through elaborate processes to avoid passing along Huntington's or Tay-Sachs' genes to their children, without needing to tell the parents whether they have the stigmatizing and untreatable diagnoses. This is not something special to this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your point that this isn't unique to TIs is well taken, but the concern still applies here. Given the possibility for stigmatization, the relative lack of research into the beliefs of TIs (summarizing every available peer-reviewed study can be done in a few pages in an introduction of a book), as well as the definitional challenges that have been raised about labelling them delusional, we should step cautiously here.
It would be prudent to include some note or nod to these challenges, if not in the introduction, elsewhere in the article in order to more closely align with WP:NPOV. Amranu (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have at least 3 separate sources saying the subculture exemption in the DSM's definition of delusion may apply to TIs. They are literally saying they may not fit the current medical definition of delusional, because the existence of the TI community may count as a subculture under the definition. That's why it has been raised in the conclusion of two studies, as well as one of our fine news articles. Amranu (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We should not misrepresent sources which are pointing out flaws in the DSM's definition as suggesting these folks are not actually delusional - they aren't doing that. MrOllie (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're conflating the medical and colloquial usage of the word delusion. We are using the medical definition and I don't appear to be the only one that agrees with that.
Under the current medical definition, there is real academic debate to be had over whether or not they fit the definition, and I've cited three sources to that affect. Amranu (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This debate could be worded in a neutral manner. For instance, "Some researchers raise the point that the existence of the TI community creates challenges for the definition of delusion under the DSM. Added as the last sentence of the introduction. This raises the point that there are challenges to the definition but does not state TIs are not delusional. We might also incorporate Dr. Bell's note that not all participants in these communities are necessarily delusional. Amranu (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. It's clearly relevant to this page given the hesitance of Dr. Bell to describe the entire community as delusional, as well as being in the conclusion of not one but two separate studies on TIs. This isn't just a minor detail; it's a significant point raised by experts in the field, and dismissing it entirely would be a disservice to our readers and a potential violation of WP:NPOV. I understand the concern about undue weight, but I believe a brief mention of these diagnostic challenges, properly sourced and attributed, would improve the article's accuracy and neutrality without making it the central focus. What if we added a sentence like, "Some researchers have raised questions about the applicability of the DSM's subculture exemption to online communities of TIs, highlighting the complexities of diagnosis in this context," followed by a citation? It works in context in the last sentence of the article, it does not dismiss worries about delusionality, and highlights the diagnostic difficulties discussed by Dr. Bell in our newspaper article (and again, has also been raised by a more recent WP:MEDRS compliant source). Amranu (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Getting back to whether or not I am misinterpreting the sources, this book on page 13, has a relevant excerpt interpreting Bell's paradox: "The authors discuss two paradoxes. First, the individuals posting about mind control cannot be diagnosed as delusional because their online communities accept their ideas. Second, if they were diagnosed as delusional, joining a supportive online community could negate this diagnosis."
In other words, the paradox -is- essentially that if we allow for the subculture exemption - necessary for protecting religious and other cultural ideas from being declared delusional - then the TI community may not be delusional as it could count as a subculture. This is completely relevant to the article as it stands, as it challenges the notion that these beliefs are necessarily delusional or that we can just assert they are delusional as fact. This is why it's important that we either add a line acknowledging this debate, or at the very least attribute our medical diagnosis to the experts and not use the editorial voice for it. Amranu (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're building your own WP:OR on top of a source that is clearly just pointing out that the DSM's subculture exception leads to nonsensical outcomes. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The stated quote strongly supports my interpretation, either way it's irrelevant because WP:NPOV requires that we " represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
No, it does not. it challenges the notion that these beliefs are necessarily delusional is not reflective of what the source is - that is you assuming the conclusion that you're looking to arrive at. MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The source I quoted literally said "First, the individuals posting about mind control cannot be diagnosed as delusional because their online communities accept their ideas."
The problem with cherry-picking quotes is it never holds up in the context of the whole book, which also states "Most of the time, a gangstalking delusion would be classified as a non-clinical delusion". MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You also ignored my point on reflecting this viewpoint in our article due to it being a signifiacant viewpoint raised in reliable sources. Amranu (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
How about "Some researchers have pointed out that the existence of online communities of self-identified 'targeted individuals' raises questions about the applicability of the DSM's subculture exemption in the definition of delusion. This exemption, intended to prevent culturally accepted beliefs from being misdiagnosed as delusions, creates a paradox when applied to online communities with shared beliefs about electronic harassment, highlighting the complexities of diagnosis in this context."
Again, this doesn't suggest TIs are not delusional. It's a nuanced take which accurately summarizes our sources without stepping into our debate over interpretation. Amranu (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could you justify your assertion with reason? This is a significant viewpoint raised in sources that are directly relevant to this article, as this article is about TIs and the paradox is about TIs. Amranu (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nah, we're just going around in circles and repeating ourselves. Feel free to scroll up a bit and read my posts (and those of WhatamIdoing, who also makes some good points here) again. MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 17 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.
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
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
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 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
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
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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell 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
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.
- "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.
"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
(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
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
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:17, 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]
Bluethricecreamman, I understand your concerns about the volume of my replies and the potential for WP:BLUDGEONing. I apologize if my engagement has been overwhelming. My intention has been to ensure the article accurately reflects the sources and adheres to WP:NPOV, particularly regarding the significant viewpoint on the DSM's subculture exemption.
I acknowledge that I'm a relatively new editor, and I appreciate the feedback. I'll make a conscious effort to step back, consolidate my replies, and focus on contributing new information or perspectives rather than reiterating existing points.
I also understand the concern about being a WP:SPA. While this topic is of particular interest to me, I'm committed to contributing to Wikipedia more broadly and will make an effort to engage with other articles as well.
Looking back at the discussion, I recognize that my argument has evolved. Initially, I focused heavily on WP:MEDRS, but I've come to realize that the core issue is more about WP:NPOV and accurately representing the significant viewpoint found in the sources regarding the subculture exemption. While I still believe high-quality medical sources are important, I've shifted my focus to ensuring that this specific nuance, as discussed by researchers, is appropriately acknowledged in the article. The latest proposed wording, I believe, achieves this without giving undue weight to a fringe perspective.
I'm committed to working collaboratively to improve the article. I'll be more mindful of my participation and strive to contribute constructively. If consensus remains elusive, I'm open to exploring an RfC to gather broader community input. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Amranu (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I'll be brief then. I'm not bludgeoning, at least I'm not using the same argument over and over again anyway. My views are evolving with feedback. Whereas first I was attempting to replace the sources used in the article with higher-quality medical sources, I am now attempting to work with others to get a significant viewpoint added to the article. Although originally I was relying on WP:MEDRS to advocate for change, I am now relying more on WP:NPOV (although we should get consensus on whether or not MEDRS applies separate any other edit). I'd appreciate more participation in the conversation, honestly. Amranu (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It should be abundantly clear by now that you aren't anywhere near achieving a consensus for watering-down the description of this topic. No amount of wikilawyering is going to change that. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will help you draft an RFC if you will commit to: 1) Making only one comment on the RFC, unless someone asks you a direct question by username and 2) After the RFC, if it doesn't go your way, you find other topics to work on. You will not continue arguing about Electronic harassment, mind control, targeted individuals, etc. MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll take you up on that honestly, but I think I want to go to the NPOV discussion board prior to an RFC (to make sure we're checking all the boxes on WP:RFCBEFORE). I'll refrain from commenting on the noticeboard much, I genuinely want to see what others have to say and I've made some pretty substantial arguments here that have mostly been WP:IDHT'd. Amranu (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a one time offer, made in the interest in not wasting more community time. If you decide instead to start a thread at a noticeboard to re-hash the argument, I expect that an admin will just apply a WP:NOTHERE block, or perhaps a topic ban under the fringe general sanctions. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not planning on rehashing the entire argument, mainly the latest NPOV concerns given the three sources I'm citing with that POV that are all relatively high-quality and relevant sources.
Anyway it could be done in an RfC or on the board, the main question is "Does the current introduction of the Electronic harassment article, which describes the beliefs of 'targeted individuals' as 'delusional' in Wikipedia's voice, violate WP:NPOV, considering the existence of reliable sources that discuss the diagnostic challenges posed by the DSM's subculture exemption?"
Here's an arguments for and against section:
Arguments For Change (Amranu's Position):
WP:NPOV Violation: Stating the belief as "delusional" in Wikipedia's voice without attribution gives undue weight to the mainstream medical perspective and potentially violates WP:NPOV.
Subculture Exemption: Reliable sources, including peer-reviewed studies by Bell, et al. (2006) and others, discuss the "paradox" created by the DSM's subculture exemption, which raises questions about the applicability of the "delusional" label to online communities like those of TIs.
Source Interpretation: A book on the topic interprets this paradox as meaning that individuals in these online communities "cannot be diagnosed as delusional" because their beliefs are shared within the group.
Diagnostic Challenges: The sources highlight the complexities of diagnosing delusions in the context of online communities, where shared beliefs can make it difficult to distinguish between cultural norms and psychopathology.
Proposed Solution: Attribute the "delusional" label to medical experts or add a sentence acknowledging the debate about the subculture exemption to ensure neutrality.
Arguments Against Change (Opposing Editors' Position):
Mainstream Consensus: The overwhelming consensus within the medical and psychiatric community is that the core beliefs associated with electronic harassment are indicative of delusional thinking.
WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY: The belief in electronic harassment is considered a fringe belief, and therefore, per WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, it does not require the same level of representation as mainstream views.
WP:OR Concerns: There are concerns that interpreting the sources to mean that TIs cannot be diagnosed as delusional constitutes original research (WP:OR).
"Hairsplitting": The proposed addition acknowledging the diagnostic challenges has been dismissed as "hairsplitting" and irrelevant to the article.
Focus on established medical opinion: The article should focus on the established medical understanding of these beliefs as delusional, and avoid giving undue weight to a minority perspective that challenges this consensus. I would then followup with a comment on my counter-arguments and leave it mostly alone at that point, unless I receive questions.
That does not remotely resemble a brief, neutral RFC statement. A proper RFC would be something like: Should the lead paragraph of the article be amended with the following sentence '<Your new sentence here>'. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. It implies that the article violates NPOV. A well formatted RFC is exceedingly simple and focused on what change is actually being proposed. MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I'll drop the last bit after "considering", so something like "Does the current introduction of the Electronic harassment article, which describes the beliefs of 'targeted individuals' as 'delusional' in Wikipedia's voice, violate WP:NPOV"
You should drop the whole thing. Open ended questions are not actionable. I repeat, a proper RFC would be: " Should the lead paragraph of the article be amended with the following sentence '<Your new sentence here>'". That's it. Full stop. No arguments sections, you put your argument in your comment in the RFC dicussion. MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Should the introduction of Electronic harassment be amended with However, the existence of the TI community poses a dilemma to the DSM's definition of delusion, as it could count as a subculture for the purposes of the DSM's subculture exemption.' Amranu (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
About "1) Making only one comment on the RFC" (unless directly asked): I think a single comment per day usually works better. The single comment can be used to reply to any direct questions, and when the rule is "one time stamp per 24 hours, no matter what", there can be no confusion over whether anyone asked for a reply.
I doubt that a TBAN would happen; it's too much 'paperwork' when a partial block would have the same effect.
@Amranu, my question for you is not meant to sound aggressive, so I apologize if it sounds blunt in text. You'll have to imagine me asking this in the gentlest voice you can. The question is: How can we best tell you 'no', so that you will really believe that the answer is indeed 'no'? I won't mind if you think that our 'no' is proof that we're all 100% wrong, but the answer is 'no', the answer is going to stay 'no', and the only thing to do at this point is to convince you that the answer actually is 'no'. AFAICT there is a zero percent chance of getting even a small part of what you want. One option is that you could believe me that the answer is 'no' now, and we could move on to talking about other things that could be improved in this article. Another is that we go to NPOVN and tell you 'no' there. Another is that we have an RFC and tell you 'no' here. You might have another idea about a page or process by which we can tell you 'no'. What would convince you that our 'no' really, truly, absolutely means 'no', and that no matter what you do or say here, the answer is 'no'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
WhatamIdoing, I appreciate your efforts to find a resolution. My core concern is ensuring the article adheres to WP:NPOV (and obviously tangetially WP:MEDRS). I feel my argument, focusing on the significant viewpoint regarding the DSM's subculture exemption found in multiple reliable sources, hasn't been fully addressed. To feel my concerns were heard, I need clear acknowledgment of this argument, direct engagement with the core WP:NPOV question (does omitting this discussion violate policy?), and a detailed, policy-grounded explanation for the decision reached, whatever it may be. I believe a fair process is crucial for ensuring the article is comprehensive and neutral.
I am, unfortunately, aiming for something lower than "feeling your concerns were heard". I am aiming for something closer to "feeling like getting any of your desired changes to the Wikipedia article is hopeless". What would that take? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's probably about the same. Engagement with my arguments on the basis of policy. Where am I going wrong in my application of WP:NPOV, for instance, rather than just suggesting the content is not suitable for the page without giving any reasons as to why. Both you and MrOllie did this. You asserted a conclusion and did not back it up with any premises that could be agreed or disagreed with. While you're free to do this, it's not particularly constructive for convincing someone they're wrong. Amranu (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Second, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the source. The point of the source is not to say that electronic harassment actually is non-delusional; instead, it's saying that if the DSM doesn't define their subculture thing more clearly, then some rules-lawyer is going to claim that an "online community" counts as a subculture and therefore claim that people who are truly delusional – people whom this source describes as "highly likely to be influenced by delusional beliefs" – will claim not to be technically delusional, just like criminals who are actually guilty sometimes (though rarely) get out of punishment on a technicality. If you can't see that in the source, then I can't solve that problem for you.
Third, nobody here is required to WP:SATISFY you. I'm not interested in doing that. I only want to convince you that your idea has been rejected. I do not care whether you are convinced that you were wrong. I only care whether you are convinced that we have (wrongly, if you prefer) rejected your ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the source. My background is in mathematics and philosophy, so I understand definitional contradictions quite well. The existence of a TI community creates problems for calling them delusional under the current medical definition. This means it creates problems for this article. I believe you're fundamentally putting words in the researchers mouths by saying there's a "possible, future problem". It's real and it should be acknowledged in this article, given that multiple peer-reviewed sources about TIs have given weight to it. Amranu (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"The existence of a TI community" could only create a problem under this definition if that "community" counts as a bona fidesubculture (which it doesn't).
Culture is difficult to define. and I think your link doesn't really prove that they're not a subculture. Anyway it's not our place to decide philosophical issues, only to mention them if they're relevant to the article in some way. Clearly the practitioners we're citing felt it was a big enough problem that they needed to include it in the conclusion of their study -and- mention it in an interview.
I have some thoughts on a blurb about Havana Syndrome being added to this page, given the weight that TIs place on those events for validating their experience which has been mentioned by researchers when discussing them, but nothing concrete yet. That question should suffice for now. Amranu (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So you're thinking that the article should say that TIs claim that real-world things, like Havana syndrome and Directed-energy weapons, prove their beliefs, even though they are not exposed to these real-world things (or the real-world things are not relevant, e.g., PMID27169299), they are not being targeted by anyone, and they are delusional?
This source also engages with this academic debate, arguing against taking "self published websites" as evidence of a subculture (but still recognizing the academic debate itself, which is relevant in my claim that it is a significant viewpoint).
Specifically, the quote is "The existence of self-published webpages concerned with particular beliefs was not taken as evidence of the belief belonging to a culture or sub-culture (Bell, Maiden, Munoz-Solomando, & Reddy, 2006)" Amranu (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Likely delusional", to be accurate. They're not foolhardy enough to say they are delusional for a fact. To quote this study on TIs, "The prospect of a clinician definitively establishing the truth or falsity of a delusional belief system is often impractical or impossible." Amranu (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
(I don't much like my above comment, so take this one instead) Anyway, the point is they had to declare that the TIs were not a subculture in order to determine that they were delusional, whereas other researchers clearly don't agree. In particular, that book cited above implicitly assumes they -are- a culture in the introduction, when discussing Bell's paradox.
I think that a section on the difficulty of deciding what counts as a bona fide subculture and what doesn't would be entirely out of place in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that might be a bit much, but we should still mention the debate given WP:NPOV, and we also should probably discuss further changes given we know of this philosophical debate around the term 'delusion' when used in this context. Amranu (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have indedefinitely pageblocked Amranu from this article and talk page for disruptive editing, including tendentious editing, bludgeoning and failure to accept clearcut consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2024 (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)
