Talk:Directed-energy weapon

Protests

Dear @Glman99: could you please explain the relevance of mentioning a specific protest in the present article's lead. fgnievinski (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The cropping is justified for focusing on the actual weapon, which was barely visible in the original image. Secondly, it avoids a racially charged subject, which is not cogent for the topic at hand. fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The cropping removes important contextual detail which demonstrates current deployment which is of especial value given it highlights the use of directed-energy weapons in the civilian context. Wikipedia is not a user manual or catalogue. It needs to develop the subject matter in an encyclopedic manner and hence represent different aspects of the subject, such as how something is used, and when it has been used. The lives of people may also be represented in Wikipedia due to their relationship to the subject matter. This is true whatever the racial identity or ethnicity of the people represented. On Wikipedia, removing people from photos on the basis of their race, or because a perception that their race is considered in socio-political terms in regard to the subject matter, is regarded as unfair discrimination. Why should they not be represented? I suggest that a failure to do so amounts to a form of systemic bias (please see Wiki project page on it). In addition, the photo is clearly now out of focus. So while the LRAD shown may be bigger in the picture, it is far less clearly defined. But overall the biggest problem is the unfair discrimination.RickyBennison (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Havana syndrome

@Johnjbarton Please explain the value of keeping content about Havana Syndrome on this page. Per the Havana Syndrome page, current consensus is that it was unrelated to Directed-energy Weapons. I do see the value in referencing Directed-energy weapons on the Havana Syndrome page, but not the other way around. Plenty of conspiracy theories about directed-energy weapons that we could mention; doesn't mean we should. Uhoj (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Uhoj Thank you for opening this topic. In this edit you deleted a section with references, using a great edit summary:

• February 2022, the State Department released a report by the JASON Advisory Group, which stated that it was highly unlikely that a directed energy attack had caused the health incidents.

However, the Havana syndrome page says "The cause of Havana syndrome remains unknown and controversial.". In my view, "unlikely" does not eliminate the potential, but simply alters the probabilities. Notably the existence of the JASON report did not cause the Havana syndrome to report that directed energy weapons have been eliminated as a cause.

As you noted, 'directed energy weapons' have a certain puzzling mystic, I suppose because people imaginations far exceed the practical realities of such devices. In as much as the early reports by reasonable observers included the possibility of the use of directed energy weapons, omitting the Havana syndrome story on this page could be interpreted as a form of censorship, feeding conspiracies. In my opinion it much better to alter the text to clarify the current state of analysis, carefully following the wording of reliable sources. The best antidote to misinformation is good information, not no information.

We can seek other opinions if you wish. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Great points! I truly appreciate your constructive suggestions. I updated this section with text taken from Havana syndrome Uhoj (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)