Talk:Electronic harassment

Incidents

WP:NOTSOAPBOX. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section is placed here for discussion in case an editor decides unilaterally to remove it again. It's not OR, as these incidents are sourced to international mainstream media as cases of people who have claimed to be electronically harassed, even if such claims could be mere cover stories and excuses for deliberate mayhem as a true motive has not been uncovered for any of these apparent lone wolf attacks. Bachcell (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC) In 2008, James Walbert went to court claiming that his former business associate had threatened him with “jolts of radiation” after a disagreement, and later claimed feeling symptoms such as electric shock sensations, and hearing generated tones and other strange sounds in his ears. The court decided to issue an order banning “electronic means” to further harass Walbert. In other cases, government authorities have made official statements dismissing such beliefs as being due to mental issues and delusions in connection with a number of violent and deadly incidents have been associated with individuals who claim to have been tormented as targeted individuals. The following incidents involved in deaths of 17 and injuring of 6 in mass shootings and a car rampage. Fuaed Abdo Ahmed was a 20-year-old man who on August 13, 2013, took two women and a man hostage at the St. Joseph branch of Tensas State Bank. He killed two of the hostages after releasing the third. He was an Arab of Yemeni descent and indicated an interest in militant Islam as he had been interviewed by the Homeland Security posing with an AK-47 assault rifle on a trip to Yemen. A subsequent police investigation officially concluded that whatever his motives, Ahmed suffered from mental issues such as hearing voices and paranoid schizophrenia, and acted alone as a lone gunman and was not involved in an act of terrorism against the United States. Ahmed accused the family of his ex-girlfriend of placing a "microphone device" of some kind in his head. The Washington Navy Yard shooting occurred on September 16, 2013, when lone gunman Aaron Alexis fatally shot twelve people and injured three others in a mass shooting at the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) inside the Washington Navy Yard in Southeast Washington, D.C. The attack, which took place in the Navy Yard's Building 197, began around 8:20 a.m. EDT and ended when Alexis was killed by police around 9:20 a.m. EDT. After the Navy Yard shooting, the media speculated that Alexis had appeared to be suffering from mental illness. The media reported that Alexis had filed a police report in Rhode Island on August 2, 2013, in which he claimed to be the victim of harassment and that he was hearing voices in his head. According to an FBI official after the shooting, Alexis was under "the delusional belief that he was being controlled or influenced by extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves". A message later obtained by federal authorities from Alexis' personal computing devices said, "Ultra low frequency attack is what I've been subject to for the last 3 months. And to be perfectly honest, that is what has driven me to this." On August 4, 2013, naval police were called to Alexis' hotel at Naval Station Newport and found that he had "taken apart his bed, believing someone was hiding under it, and observed that Alexis had taped a microphone to the ceiling to record the voices of people that were following him". At the time of the incident, he was working for the contractor at the base. In the United States Capitol shooting incident (2013) on October 3, 2013 in Washington, D.C. Miriam Carey, 34, an unarmed African American dental hygienist from Stamford, Connecticut, attempted to drive through a White House security checkpoint in her black Infiniti G37 coupe, struck a U.S. Secret Service officer, and was chased by the Secret Service to the United States Capitol where she was fatally shot by law enforcement officers. A young child, Carey's daughter, was found unharmed in the car after it was ultimately stopped. Carey had told police in December 2012 that she thought Obama was eavesdropping on her and the government was electronically monitoring her house, and she believed she was some kind of a prophet. On November 20, 2014, a gunman, identified as 31-year-old Myron May, shot an employee and two students at Strozier Library on the university campus shortly after midnight. He was a lawyer and an alumnus of the university, who was obsessed with targeted individual conspiracy theories and believed that the U.S. government was watching him. He was fatally shot by responding police officers after he shooting at them outside Strozier Library. After the shooting, it was revealed that May had mailed a total of ten packages to friends throughout the country beforehand; the contents of the packages are unknown. Before the attack, May shared on Facebook a Google search with the words “Targeted individuals” typed into the search box. He had also posted a video clip from the television show Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura with a man who is claimed “put together the technology that allows the government to transmit thoughts and voices into the heads of Americans.” In a series of communications and and phone calls, May told his friends that believed "stalkers" were harassing him from the government, and a "direct energy weapon" was being used to hurt him. He told friends to expect packages that would "expose" the conspiracy that tormented him. References

Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of fringe conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

At best, the items are about people who claim or rumored to have claimed electronic harassment, not about electronic harassment itself. Their claims are suspect. I don't see PressTV as a RS in this matter. Iran has much to gain by getting such a claim into conspiracy theorist circles. Nothing here. This doesn't belong in the article. Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this mass of at best tangentially relevant material is WP:UNDUE. Looie496 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article

The article page for this issue should be assessed as high importance in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. This means that a massive rewrite and merge with similar articles may be needed. The topic must be specific and clearly identify both the medical and legal necessity and victim's awareness perspective without infringing upon the rights of either aurguementation.

---

Note to authors: It is not encyclopdic intent to determine if the topic exists, but instead to report when such events must be administered by their genius.

---

Below are links to articles that contribute directly to the argument of if this situation is a legitimate treatable condition or if it is a form of medical tort or malpractice.

---

Medical and Legal Perspective

• Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States): Represents workers rights and occupational safety standards.
• Performance rights organisation An agency established to represent the arts and media industry.
• Transparency (behavior): Establishes the bridgework between social and consumer relations
• Administration: The standing definition of normalcy and management.
• UL (safety organization): A global safety assurance and standards organization.
• Risk management: A universal insurance principle of inclusion by corporate responsibility.
• Social control theory: A theory of social studies that supports exploitation of social process.
• House arrest: In the justice system; an electronic monitoring of released parties; probation.
• Doctor–patient relationship: A contentious and consenting agreement of treatment.
• Incapacitation (penology): A method of proactively detaining a person or group in accordance with law.
• Ambulance: An emergency response and medical monitoring vehicle. See also; Paramedics
• Health care reform in the United States
• Mandate

---

Consumer Awareness Perspective

• Public-order crime: The systemic disruption of normalcy in a society.
• Breach of confidence: (see also; Securities exchange In tort law, the instance of disclosing confidential and trade secrets, usually for profit.
• Denial of service attack: A computer network blackout due to dispute or liability.
• Malpractice: Abuse sustained in the auspiciousness of transparency during an administration or treatment.
• Discrimination: A usually defensive response against another which creates bias, stress and mental duress.
• Suicide: The termination of life from one's own cognizance or accord; may be medically induced or voluntary.
• Apartheid: A defunct legislative system defined as legalized discrimination; typically in ethnic cleansing cases.
• Ostracism: The systematic expulsion or nullification of citizenship, rights and religious disposition.
• Persecution: The instance in sociophysics in which a group of individuals are isolated for reasons of conjecture or exploit; usually religious.
• Political repression: A character assassination of an individual or group for political purposes.
• Euthanasia: A mode of benevolence in which human life is expunged to prevent further suffering and impoverished conditions.

---

• Panopticon: A structural layout which allows detained parties to be monitored singularly using a minimum supervision of staff.

These articles help differentiate contemporary medical practice and misconceptions and provides evidential referencing for legitimate civil solutions.

It should be noted that this revision must be approached with an up range perspective, each author specializing under a particular genius; troubleshooting only authentically referenced citations, designated as being either for the medical and legal community (practice) or as a victim awareness (consumer) topic.

The revision must be administer meritocratically; meaning that the original integrity of each author must be protected by means of creating a project sandbox to store the original completed article from which existing authors may revise their content as a genius within the new article template.

According to Wikipedia guidelines for Good Article merit; infoboxes, tables and classic doctoral thesis structure outline must be used to improve this article's readability. This includes links to peer reviewed articles, troubleshooting issues with minimal speculation and preserving the integrity of both institutional (practice) and civil (consumer) rights.

For general reference, it is proposed that the new project page be merged as a sub-project with the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology project. Naming and creation of such is subject to a popular vote of the original collective authors of this article page.

Habatchii

Let me just note that any changes to this article need to be based on reputable published sources. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Where to start...

The article page for this issue should be assessed as high importance in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines.

Which guidelines would that be?

the argument of if this situation is a legitimate treatable condition or if it is a form of medical tort or malpractice.

Umm. Neither?
And I fail to see a connection between the belief that one is being harassed with electromagnetic waves and the linked articles. Underwriters Laboratories? Apartheid? Health care reform in the United States? Just... what? Kolbasz (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Below are links to articles that contribute directly to the argument..." No, we need reliable sources that directly and explicitly discuss electronic harassment. Pulling material from articles that we think may be somehow related is WP:SYNTHESIS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. There is nothing whatsoever in the article to suggest that most of the proposed links have anything to do with the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a timeline for the article's candidacy/nomination? Habatchii (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No - there is no timeline for anything, until somebody nominates the article - at which point, it will almost certainly be rejected. Meanwhile, could you please explain why you think adding completely irrelevant material would help make this a 'good article'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Breach of confidence: (see also; Securities exchange In tort law, the instance of disclosing confidential and trade secrets, usually for profit. This could also be considered "disruptive" editing. Sorry about the puppetry statement, I still would like to make this into a good article. Gotta go, ADMINONSHOULDER_Habatchii (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What could be considered disruptive editing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Its definition

WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the basic definition could be improved. It says: "Electronic harassment is the alleged use of electromagnetic waves to harass a victim", but by consulting the references it's clear that: it's not about alleged devices that exclusively make use of electromagnetic waves, thus we would be better using the term Directed-energy weapons (indeed this term does appear) it's also about torture because the claims denote control over the alleged victim and the unability to defend, rather than something that disturbs, upsets, or constitutes a threat (indeed the term "torture" does appear) it's an alleged covert activity because it entirely belongs to secrecy being that hidden identities and locations, and invisible and silent "bullets" are allegedly involved (indeed the term "covert" does appear) Thus I think it would be better to state that "Electronic harassment is the alleged use of Directed-energy weapons to covertly harass and torture a victim". I think the term "harassment" is preferred over "torture" because it helps denoting there's no physical restreinment involved as in the popular sense of torture, yet by definition, what we are naming only with the term "harassment", is described as and even called "torture" also. Think about the term Organized crime for example: it is called so, but we know it does not refer to "any crime which requires organization" (ex. a gang robbing a bank). Indeed the basic definition of the "Organized crime" article states it is about highly centralized groups. By consulting the references it looks like the claims of electronic harassment describe it as starting as harassment and eventually becoming torture, thus why it was named "Electronic torture harassment", I think. A few hours ago I tried editing but I guess someone thought to call an admin to have me warned of edit warring. I'm told I should have reached consensus here on the talk page first. Really? I mean, these have nothing to do with the consensus, do they? They don't affect the validity of the consensus's standpoint. Clinicallytested (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) The topic of this article is a delusional belief. It isn't about 'torture', because there is no evidence that such torture is occurring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Typo: ".. thus why it was named Electronic harassment". Clinicallytested (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense at all. I hope you have something more appropriate to criticize my comment. I already wrote that my proposed changes do not affect the validity of the consensus' standpoint. Why are you acting irrationally defensive? Clinicallytested (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC) If I'm interested in a discussion regarding 'rationality', I'll find someone qualified to discuss the subject. Meanwhile, we aren't going to add your nonsense about 'torture', 'invisible bullets' and the rest to the article. Nobody has been tortured, and we have no reason to engage in facile hyperbole just to suit the obsessions of delusional fanatics. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dingbat's forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Did you just admit you're being irrational??????? Then why are you even commenting? Why are you saying I did propose to add 'invisible bullets'? Are you able to elaborate the reason you think adding 'torture' is wrong, other than with the false allegation that it "suits the obsessions of delusional fanatics"? Also, what is the "facile hyperbole" you are talking about? Consider I don't have telepathic powers. It looks as you consider yourself a valuable person, which is admirable I guess, but myself I'm really considering the chance you have both too much free time and a bad attitude. Clinicallytested (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC) This article will comply with Wikipedia policies. We are not going to add delusional drivel about 'torture' to suit your deranged obsessions - add it again, and I will be requesting that you be blocked indefinitely - which given your past editing history looks like a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC) I'm all for wikipedia policies but again, I do not understand the sense of your criticism. Please chill down, realize I haven't got time to entertain myself with anyone who's not willing to be productive, and then please start being productive (if you are capable of doing so, since I'm still looking to read anything productive of you). Really, what do you mean with "suits the obsessions of delusional fanatics"? If you mean: they are true (my proposed changes) are right but they are bad for their mental status because they encourage their beliefs, I would answer you can't raise yourself over the scope of wikipedia which is to bring knowledge, choosing instead to think that you can decide what is good or bad for these people. I mean, it could be that using the stronger term 'torture' some mental health physicians decide to cure them. Also, if we had to consider other people's well being wikipedia would be a joke, not an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not a doctor. What are you talking about? on the other hand if you are referring to me as a delusional fanatic looking to suit obsessions, I can only say that firstly it has nothing to do with editing wikipedia, does it? It means literally nothing. You are supposed to comment my suggestions on the article (which I fairly outlined with care), not to resort to personal attacks against my person! And secondly, conveying the chance that you care about my personal mental health, and for what it's worth (nothing), I'm not a delusional fanatic. So again, what are you talking about? Ah ah ah, everybody is a psychologist nowadays, think about the popular expressions "You are crazy", "You are insane". I almost think I understand where you're coming from, too bad that attitude is of no use within wikipedia. Concluding, please consider (again) that I'm not telepathic thus unfortunately you are required an effort to elaborate your position. And just for the sake of it, I'm wondering who is the one between me and you who should report to the admins. Uhmmm... Clinicallytested (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC) I am 'required' to do nothing. And if you think that reporting me to the admins will further your cause, feel free to do so - I could do with a laugh. Otherwise, I have said all that needs to be said here - if you lack the ability to comprehend it, that's your problem, not mine... AndyTheGrump (talk) Uhmmm... you are turning into a joke, do you realize that? It's not me threatening to report to admins. When is it that you will be able to generate something other than attacking me (whether taking administrative resolutions or on a personal level)???? Something productive, at least something that complies with wikipedia?? When is it? Do you realize I'm doing the work for you by elaborating your own position????? Again, keep in mind that firstly I have no time to play with you, and secondly that I'm not telepathic thus you're required to elaborate your position or abruptly stop commenting here. By the way, another typo by me (I do write a tad more than you, and most importantly I put efforts into elaborating): on the first bullet instead of "they are true but.." I meant "they (my proposed changes) are right but..". Clinicallytested (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC) I waited more than 24 hours but no reply, yet I decided for no WP:BOLD. So it looks as after a few comments AndyTheGrump (the only one replying as of yet) fades out of the talk page. He avoids elaborating, avoids logic, and even threatens to have me blocked. It's like if it's him who did open the section, not me. His attitude is simply hostile. As I see it, this is an abstract of how the discussion evolved. I'm eager to recognize failures (if any) on my side. - I wrote "Judging by the sources, the expression (2+2=4) is correct, anyone agrees?". - He replies "Wrong, you are implying the number zero does not exist". - So I reply "That doesn't make sense, (2+2=4) does not imply that". - He replies "You are delusional trying to prove zero does not exist. And if you edit I'm going to request you be blocked forever". - So I reply "You are not supposed to attack me but elaborate. Do you care to elaborate?". - And he goes "I'm not required to elaborate - I already explained myself, if you don't comprehend that's your problem, not mine". He asserts I'm the one in breach of policies but to me it looks it's him (which is typical I guess) thus the discussion is going nowhere. However, I wait still for a healthy debate on the proposed content. Clinicallytested (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Read WP:NOTFORUM. As you have not provided WP:RS for your unacceptable edits, they will not be used. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 11:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC) That is quite harsh of you to say, since other than describing the reasons why my suggestions should be used, I clearly pointed to the references from the very start. Everyone can access those references on the article page thus there was no reason to link them. So, do you mean you want me to dissect them for you instead? That will result in a lengthy yet necessary comment at this point, which I would have done before if only Andy did ask instead of behaving so irrationally hostile. About WP:NOTFORUM, I was just trying to be open towards understanding his point (being that he was the only replier before you came in) and recognizing any failure on my side during our discussion, while showing no interest to appeal to admins for his behaviour. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I don't agree with Clinicallytested's proposed edits to add "torture" and "covert" to the lead sentence. "Harass" describes and summarizes the topic adequately per the sources used in the article. It may be appropriate if at some point we come upon reliable independent sources that provide in-depth discussion of these concepts as related to this topic. For all the behavioral complaints about another editor listed above, WP:AN/I is the appropriate venue for those, not this Talk page.- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC) You ask for in-depth discussion of my suggestions from other sources when all that's needed is to consult the references of the article: we clearly disagree on how to interpret the references, or is it you're all in bad faith? It's true I was blocked 6 months ago trying to edit this same article, but I was totally unexperienced (my first ever edits), it was a long time ago and after that time I showed no behaviour involving being unaware of the policies or disruptive editing again (indeed I even made a successfull minor edit to this article 4 months ago). I'm assuming good faith thus I will go in-depth on my suggestions as you politely ask by dissecting the references. As replied to Roxy, I was looking to understand Andy's point (being that he was the only replier before you both came in) and recognize any failure on my side during our discussion by stimulating other editors' comments, while showing no interest to appeal to admins for his behaviour. I was explaining the issue (Andy's illogicity) yet being self-critical, not conveying WP:AN/I although it probably is what should be done, thank you. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC) No, I'm not asking you to dissect sources. I'm saying that the existing sources do not provide in-depth discussion of the topic's relation to "torture","directed-energy weapons" and "covert" that would justify these things being emphasized in the article lead. By "in-depth discussion" I mean that the sources need to treat these things as more than a passing mention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC) We obviously rely on different criterions to differentiate between an "accurate information" and a "passing mention". We will only be able to reach a shared solution to this debate by dissecting the sources and debating on that, rather than by debating on how we interpret them, right? WP:EXHAUST Sure you did not explicitly ask me to dissect the sources, but since you clearly and politely implied the issue is about our different interpration of the sources, I implied you asked me for their dissection. Are you letting me know you woud have preferred me first asking you "Do you want me to dissect them?" and wait for your reply, rather than directly moving to the next phase???? Clinicallytested (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Consensus is clearly against your proposed changes. There is no need to 'dissect' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I already told you to abruptly stop commenting if you are not willing to be constructive. You are being disruptive, and your sterile comradeship is repelling. Clinicallytested (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Pointing out that consensus is against you is not disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC) This is what you wrote: Consensus is clearly against your proposed changes. There is no need to 'dissect' anything. I already told you I have no time to play with you, Andy. Please avoid tip-tapping nonsense on the keyboard again. Clinicallytested (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Consensus is against you, move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Another sterile example of comradeship. Wikipedia doesn't work with the majority rule, polling is not a substitute for discussion as per WP:VOTE. I suspect WP:CANVASS here. Consensus is violating NPOV because it does not reflect the references (I will demonstrate this nextly with my dissection). You are being disruptive, yet you're lucky I don't intend to invest my time in informing the admins at this point in time. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Please do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC) That's your first constructive comment since I opened this section: two words. Please, mind your next ones (if any). And if you can't elaborate more just go for other two words' comments (but always constructive ones). Thank you. Clinicallytested (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC) To clarify, my 'please do' comment was in response to your suggestion that you might 'inform the admins'. I can see no evidence whatsoever that anyone is the slightest bit interested in your 'dissection'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC) First, I wrote "I do not intend to.." which is exactly the opposite. I already told you more than once that I do not possess telepathic powers (this is something you really should work on if you are willing to communicate, both online and in real life actually). Second, I wouldn't be so confident as you act to be about taking admins in, given your persistent disruptive behaviour. Third, the amount of interest you claim to see and/or others claim to show has nothing to do with editing wikipedia, especially in our case where disruption and sterile comradeship are embraced so openly. So again, please avoid disruptive nonsense, stop relying on comradeship, and genuinely go back to two words' comments (but you need to be constructive even if they're just two words), will you? Clinicallytested (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Indeed, this is not a forum for 'dissecting' anything. Please do take this up at WP:ANI, be sure to inform everyone you take to ANI when you do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Trying to be funny? NPOV is not going to be violated just because you don't have a will to discuss the references. Stop being disruptive and stop embracing sterile comradeship. Keep your nonsense for when I show my dissection (aka my interpretation of the references). What's all this resistance towards the content of the references???? Clinicallytested (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change article content, please provide reliable sources as a basis for the discussion of the changes. Wikipedia article talk pages are not the place for lengthy discussions of wikipedians' opinions on article subject or about each other. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Its definition (references' dissection)

A few days ago I proposed a few changes (3 terms), but some editors showed up rejecting them. Before reading here, you may want to read that discussion (right above this one) which has been misteriously closed, in order to get an idea of their hostility. This discussion is still about those same changes, yet now I'm going to give a dissection of the references because it looks like I'm the only one noting they reflect my suggested changes.

I'm going to be as short and simple yet accurate as possible mentioning what is self-evident (the terminology), and proving that my proposed changes are necessary. Obviously, since any terms appearing in the references doesn't mean their use is mandatory (however, all the terminology I'm pointing to, is in context), what I'm doing here is inviting you to consult the references (it takes less than a couple of hours, at most) carefully and neutrally which I doubt you did.

The first reference is a 5 minutes television report, the second reference is a 5 pages written article, the third reference is a 1600 words article, and the fourth reference is an 800 words article. I'm going to use the same three bullets I used in the original discussion as the general index. I only swapped the word "alleged" with "purpoted" because that's the current version of the article now (someone else edited in the meantime, yet it does not affect my changes at all).

• It's not about purported devices that exclusively make use of electromagnetic waves, thus we would be better using the term Directed-energy weapons (indeed this term does appear)

My proposition is that their claims are not only about EM waves, and most importantly that they are more about devices (specifically weapons) rather than waves.

First reference:

- No mention.

Second reference:

1. The first page cites "weapon/s" once.
2. The second page cites "weapon/s" twice.
3. The third page cites "weapon/s" 3 times with the 3rd being "Directed-energy weapons".
4. The fourth page cites "weapon/s" twice and "directed energy" once. The term "sound wave" is cited twice.
5. The fifth page cites "weapon/s" 15 times with 2 times being "Directed-energy weapons", and once "Directed Energy".

Third reference:

1. The word "weapons" is cited twice.
2. The word "weaponry" is cited once.

Fourth reference:

1. The word "weapons" is cited 4 times.
2. The word "weaponry" is cited once.
3. The word "sound" is cited twice.

• It's also about torture because the claims denote control over the purpoted victim and the unability to defend, rather than something that disturbs, upsets, or constitutes a threat (indeed the term "torture" does appear)

My proposition is that the claims are not just about harassment, but also torture.

First reference:

1. At 2:14 the billboard reads "Electronic harassment = Torture".
2. At 3:17 the same billboard is shown again.

Second reference:

1. The fifth page mentions the words "torturing" and "torture".

Third reference:

1. The word "torture" is mentioned once.
2. The word "torturers" is mentioned once.
3. The word "tortured" is mentioned twice.

Fourth reference:

- No mention.

• It's a purpoted covert activity because it entirely belongs to secrecy being that hidden identities and locations, and invisible and silent "bullets" are purpotedly involved (indeed the term "covert" does appear)

My proposition is that the claims emphasize the covert nature of these purpoted activities.

First reference:

1. At 2:22 the word "covert" is both shown on screen and in the background, and it's pronunced by the president of the advocacy group.
2. At 2:38 the word "covert" appears again in the background, and it's pronunced by the journalist.
3. At 2:42 the word "covert" appears again on the advocacy website as well as on the background.
4. At 2:56 the word "covert" appears again in the background.

Second reference:

1. The third page mentions the word "covert" once.

Third reference:

1. The word "covert" is mentioned twice.

Fourth reference:

- No mention.

So in conclusion, the current definition is: "Electronic harassment is the purpoted use of electromagnetic waves to harass a victim".

But it should be: "Electronic harassment is the purpoted use of Directed-energy weapons to covertly harass and torture a victim".

There you have it. As you can see I'm not inventing anything. Now you guys forming the consensus, you either rationally demonstrate where I'm wrong, or let me help building the encyclopedia. Don't let your pride get in the way again, be brave! Clinicallytested (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

While it may be that that "directed-energy weapons", "covert", and "torture" are the words most often promoted in crank websites on the subject, Wikipedia is not required to define or describe a fringe topic in the words of the fringe proponents themselves. Scouring the sources to find how many times certain words appear isn't adequate justification for including them in the lead sentence. For example, the word "delusion" appears most often (dozens and dozens of times) in our sources, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the definition contained in the first sentence of Wikipedia's article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is adequate justification! We don't just pick what we like, we got to pick what the references say. "Crank websites"? I'm talking about the references here. "Dozens and dozens of times"??? I counted them: 14 times across all 4 references. But the word "delusional" appears 4 times already in the article! If you are willing to add the word "delusional" to the definition propose it: if consensus is on your side you get it. It's that easy. What I don't understand is how does the absence of the word "delusional" constitute a reason for not adding "directed-energy weapons", "covert", and "torture". If something is wrong is wrong, and if you believe "delusional" should be added to the definition as well, then go for it but don't use it as an excuse to deligitimate my appropriate contributions. You either rationally and according to the rules demonstrate I'm wrong or you just refrain and don't try to trick me. Clinicallytested (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The test is not whether you're "inventing" word counts, it's whether you're misinterpreting the sources. My view is that you are drawing a false inference as to the mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup. This article, per Wikipedia policy, will reflect what mainstream sources have to say on the subject matter and not what proponents of the fringe conspiracy theory would like it to say - the existing lede is a perfectly adequate summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And, with that, can we move on please, this is a giant waste of time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Either me or you guys are drawing a false inference and/or misinterpreting the sources. However, what you just did is WP:VOTE. As stated in the other discussion, I don't think these 3 terms overturn the original definition. What I think they do is to describe much more appropriately according to the references. Don't they? If they don't, I invite you to elaborate. I see bad faith (maybe you are not even aware of it at this point because it frankly is unreal) because it's not that they make the purpoted victims look less bollocks and even so it would be just collateral I guess (because we need to stick to the references in the first place). But is it really so? Adding "torture" makes them more mentally ill, and adding "directed-energy weapons" and "covert" makes their illness more elaborated which translates into more severeness. Most importantly, we are supposed to represent the references not our personal fantasies. Clinicallytested (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)