Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the successfully prosecuted cases should be added to the article. The term delusional should be reconsidered given that people have proved successfully that these crimes are being committed. 125.59.142.145 (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's been discussed many many times if you look at the talk page articles. We're not removing the term "delusional" as it's very-well sourced in this context. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then the article is basically slander by not considering the cases that prove that the plight of these individuals are real. In light of the aforementioned, it appears that the article is not well sourced and as communicated, basic slander. Its akin to supporting the narrative of a racist while refuting the prejudice against a victim. How is that sensible or well sourced? This article can also be viewed as victim shaming due to labelling the people making these claims as delusional, having a mental disorder, etc. whilst not considering that there were victims that actually proved the electronic harassment to be real in a court of law. AH2024 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's been discussed many many times if you look at the talk page articles. We're not removing the term "delusional" as it's very-well sourced in this context. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)