EH/TALK archive 4: Delusions_of_delusions
EH/TALK archive 4:Article_Structure
EH/TALK archive 6:open_question_that_covert_targeting_could_be_happening
DRN archive 26: section ""electronic harassment" article needs assistance."
DRN archive 138: section "Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4" - Informal mediation
NPOV/N archive 60: section "NPOV dispute in "electronic_harassment""
The article violates a fundamental principle of the NPOV policy:
‘Avoid stating opinions as facts.’
In the lede:
The psychiatric opinion is stated as fact rather than as an opinion. In so doing this wording violates what is stated at:
Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view NPOV is:
‘non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.’
Thus the wording should be something like: "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that these experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis"
I mentioned this issue more times than editors at EH found acceptable. ‘Leave it how it is’ was always the firm consensus. Mostly the attitude has been to not give any weight, or not give undue weight, to the Targeted Individuals view, invoking another principle of NPOV policy:
‘Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.’
However the seminal Washington Post article Mind Games cited and the other RS articles that have followed suit, give more than no weight to the view of those claiming to be Targeted Individuals.
They explore the possibility that there might be real covert targeting happening and I would say that they conclude there might be.
I found some support for my position at DRN and so started an informal mediation which was closed without resolution. It was suggested at DRN that I take the matter to NPOVN, which I did. There were two editors there without WP accounts who agreed with me and seven, mostly well-established editors, who did not. That was also closed without resolution. Obviously I am holding a minority opinion here, but it seems of fundamental importance to the article and Wikipedia generally that the matter is considered more carefully.
Should the ‘due weight’ principle be achieved by over-riding the ‘not state opinions as facts’ principle? Surely the article can enact both principles. This is what I would hope to get the editors consensus at Electronic harassment to consider.
The rest of the Electronic harassment article seems appropriately worded except for a continuation of this bias towards the delusions POV in the third paragraph of Conspiracy_theories where claims of covert targeting are referred to as ‘these fears…’ rather than what would be neutrally said ‘these claims…’ This is repeated in the first paragraph of Support_and_advocacy_communities ‘people fearing mind control.’ should be replaced by ‘people claiming mind control.’ I have not attempted to change these two instances of bias, but as they are essentially of the same nature as the more prominent one in the lede, which I did attempted to change, but failed, it seems appropriate to include them now in this attempt to get the article to NPOV.
(I have limited time for the internet, so expect slow response: 1-3 days)
EH/TALK archive 4: Delusions_of_delusions
EH/TALK archive 4:Article_Structure
EH/TALK archive 6:open_question_that_covert_targeting_could_be_happening
DRN archive 26: section ""electronic harassment" article needs assistance."
DRN archive 138: section "Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4" - Informal mediation
NPOV/N archive 60: section "NPOV dispute in "electronic_harassment""
The article violates a fundamental principle of the NPOV policy:
‘Avoid stating opinions as facts.’
In the lede:
The psychiatric opinion is stated as fact rather than as an opinion. In so doing this wording violates what is stated at:
Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view NPOV is:
‘non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.’
Thus the wording should be something like: "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that these experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis"
I mentioned this issue more times than editors at EH found acceptable. ‘Leave it how it is’ was always the firm consensus. Mostly the attitude has been to not give any weight, or not give undue weight, to the Targeted Individuals view, invoking another principle of NPOV policy:
‘Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.’
However the seminal Washington Post article Mind Games cited and the other RS articles that have followed suit, give more than no weight to the view of those claiming to be Targeted Individuals.
They explore the possibility that there might be real covert targeting happening and I would say that they conclude there might be.
I found some support for my position at DRN and so started an informal mediation which was closed without resolution. It was suggested at DRN that I take the matter to NPOVN, which I did. There were two editors there without WP accounts who agreed with me and seven, mostly well-established editors, who did not. That was also closed without resolution. Obviously I am holding a minority opinion here, but it seems of fundamental importance to the article and Wikipedia generally that the matter is considered more carefully.
Should the ‘due weight’ principle be achieved by over-riding the ‘not state opinions as facts’ principle? Surely the article can enact both principles. This is what I would hope to get the editors consensus at Electronic harassment to consider.
The rest of the Electronic harassment article seems appropriately worded except for a continuation of this bias towards the delusions POV in the third paragraph of Conspiracy_theories where claims of covert targeting are referred to as ‘these fears…’ rather than what would be neutrally said ‘these claims…’ This is repeated in the first paragraph of Support_and_advocacy_communities ‘people fearing mind control.’ should be replaced by ‘people claiming mind control.’ I have not attempted to change these two instances of bias, but as they are essentially of the same nature as the more prominent one in the lede, which I did attempted to change, but failed, it seems appropriate to include them now in this attempt to get the article to NPOV.
(I have limited time for the internet, so expect slow response: 1-3 days)